Commons Sitting of 11 July 1851

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Local Acts (Preliminary Inquiries); Victoria Park; Metropolis Buildings.
3° Court of Chancery and Judicial Committee.

METROPOLITAN WATER SUPPLY BILLS.
MR. T. DUNCOMBEsaid, in proposing the question of which he had given notice to the right hon. Baronet the Chairman of the Committee on Water Supply (Sir James Graham), he begged to assure him that

561
nothing was further from his intention than in any way to hurry or to embarrass the proceedings of that Committee. It was a matter of very great importance to this city, and he thought the House and the country were much indebted to the Committee for the manner in which they had pursued their labours. But the House was well aware that considerable irritation, and perhaps alarm, existed in the public mind from the belief that it was the intention of the Government, whether the report of that Committee was made early or not, to force legislation on the subject during the present Session. He believed the apprehension on the part of the public was unfounded; but he believed it would be much better if the right hon. Baronet would favour the House as to the prospect of the proceedings before the Committee closing, that they might come to some understanding with the Government as to their intentions during the present Session. The question he had to ask was, whether, in the event of the present Session of Parliament terminating about the usual period, there is any probability of the Committee completing its inquiry within sufficient time to enable this House to give any measure for an improved supply of water to the metropolis that consideration which so important a question demands?
SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, that the Committee of which he was a Member had prosecuted their inquiry with all the diligence and attention which they conld apply to the subject. The House was aware that many Bills had been referred to them, the first to which their attention had been given being that of the Government, and there were four or five others which remained to be considered. The preamble of the first Bill was now under consideration. The promoters of that Bill had closed their case, and the opponents of it had been divided into two classes. The first class was that of those who contended that if there he a new control to be exercised over the supply of water, it ought to be exercised by a principle of self-government, by local bodies chosen by popular election. The first class of objections were now being heard, and their case had not yet closed. The second class were the existing water companies, who were dissatisfied with the plan of the Government, which was an amalgamation of the companies, and that second class had not yet opened their case. His hon. Friend's question really resolved itself into a nice
562
speculation upon two remote probabilities—first, the contingency of what time the case would be closed; and, secondly, the duration of the Session. He might say that the labours of the Committee would be pretty nearly co-extensive with the ordinary duration of the Session; and that branch of the case now under consideration was showing to them evidence of the water question being necessarily and intimately connected with the sewage question. What would be the probable duration of the inquiry under those circumstances, his hon. Friend could form as good an opinion as himself.
MR. SPEAKERsaid, he must express a hope that the answer which the right hon. Baronet had been allowed to give, would not be drawn into a precedent. Both the question and the reply were irregular.

REGISTRATION OF ASSURANCES BILL.
SIR JAMES GRAHAMthen rose and said, he had to present a petition which he considered of very great importance. It was from the Incorporated Law Society of Solicitors and Proctors throughout the United Kingdom, and it was against the further progress of the Registration of Assurances Bill. It set forth that they had been charged with having an interest in this Bill adverse to the landed proprietors. They disclaimed having any such interest, because, although the Bill would diminish the number of transfers of land, yet the cost of each transfer would be considerably greater than heretofore. They then set forth that this Bill, as it had come down from the House of Lords, would render it necessary to have all deeds in duplicate, and that it would lead to a disclosure of family arrangements and settlements, which they considered unsafe; that the experience of the registration in Middlesex afforded a very doubtful example; that the Bill would be adverse to the sale and purchase of small properties in laud; that it involved a principle entirely at variance with the stream of modern legislation on real property; that the machinery provided by the Bill was inadequate; and under all these circumstances, considering the advanced period of the Session, they requested that the Bill should be postponed, or at all events that there should be some inquiry before a Select Committee into its merits. He wished to ask the noble Lord at the head of the Government whether he in-

563
tended to proceed with the Second Reading of the Bill that evening; and, if such were his intention, whether he proposed to press the Bill through to its final consummation this Session?
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, that it was not his intention to move the Second Reading of the Bill that evening. It was a Bill of such importance, that it was desirable to have its nature and objects clearly stated to the House on the Motion for the Second Reading; and he had therefore asked his right hon. Friend the Master of the Rolls, to move the Second Reading. He proposed that it should be taken on Monday, the 21st inst., and it certainly was his hope, considering the very great importance of the subject, after it had been considered by a Commission for a very long time—after it had been before the House of Lords, and had obtained the general consent of those Members of that House who were learned in the law—it certainly was the intention of the Government to press that Bill this Session. It might be convenient that he should state the arrangement of public business for next week. They would have a Committee of Supply that night, and he should take Supply again on Monday, after the third reading of Bills not likely to lead to discussion, and again on Thursday next. If they were enabled to get through Committee of Supply on Thursday, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would move on Friday the Third Reading of the Customs Bill, on which occasion the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stamford (Mr. Herries) would, according to his notice, make a statement to the House by way of amendment to the Bill. He (Lord J. Russell) did not propose, however, that they should move the Third Reading of the Customs Bill until they had got through Committee of Supply, and it would only be in case they got through it on Thursday that he would proceed with the Customs Bill on Friday.

THE ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION AND THE INCOMES OF BISHOPS.
SIR BENJAMIN HALLbegged to ask the noble Lord at the head of the Government the several questions, of which he had given notice, respecting the incomes of the bishops; and which were as follows:—
"The septennial period having arrived for the revision of episcopal incomes by the Ecclesiastical Commission, and it appearing by Parliamen-
564
tary Paper No. 400, that during the last fourteen years the Bishop of Durham has received 79,658 l. mnre than the income assigned to his see; and, during the last seven years, the Bishop of Chichester has received 1,230 l. more than the sum assigned to his see as net income, and has taken from the Ecclesiastical Commission 4,550 l. to make up an imaginary deficiency of income; the Bishop of St. David's 6,626 l. more than the income assigned to his see, and has taken 11,200 l. from the Commissioners; the Bishop of Oxford, in five years, has received 1,918 l. surplus, and has taken 17,567 l. from the same fund; the Bishop of Rochester, in four years, 2,279 l. surplus, and 14,000 l. from the same fund; the Bishop of Norwich, in seven years, has received 8,075 l. more than the income assigned to his see; and the Bishop of Salisbury 6,972 l., being a total of 27,100 l. more than the incomes assigned to their several sees—to ask, 1st, Whether is is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to propose any legislative measures for obviating the inconvenience and occasional hardship resulting from the present uncertainty of episcopal incomes, and prevent the episcopal body from receiving a larger amount of income than the sum assigned to their sees; to ask, 2ndly, Whether the bishops who have received larger incomes than were assigned to their sees have paid the surplus over to the common fund, or whether they have retained it for their own uses? 3rdly, It appears by the Parliamentary Paper No. 400, that the Archbishop of York is indebted to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners 2,317 l.; the Bishop of Ely 9,242 l.; the Bishop of St. Asaph (notwithstanding great deductions) 1,661 l.; total 13,220 l.: and it appears also by the Parliamentary Paper No. 153, the Ecclesiastical Commission have failed, by correspondence, to obtain the payment of those sums—to ask whether the Ecclesiastical Commission intend taking legal proceedings for the recovery of the sum due, and, if not, what course they propose to take in order that the Common Fund may not be deprived of the amount so long due, and so repeatedly demanded. 4thly, Whether it is true that the Bishop of Salisbury has intimated to the Ecclesiastical Commission, that he will surrender the property of his see to the Commissioners, and receive from them the income assigned to his see; and whether any other bishops, who had received more than the income assigned to their sees, have acted in a similar way?"
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, the House must be aware that an Act of Parliament was passed several years ago, by which the bishops were required to pay over certain sums which were beyond the sums that were assigned as the proper income of their sees, and that other of the bishops were to receive certain sums which were proposed to make out the income of their sees. Such being the case, all those bishops who received from that time their bishoprics were under the provisions of the Act of Parliament. Lately, a Bill passed which provided another mode, namely, that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners should make an arrangement by

565
which the incomes of the bishops should neither exceed nor fall short of the sum assigned to them, and that was to take place from January 1848. With regard to these latter bishops, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had been considering, and were now considering, the means of carrying that provision and the law into effect, so that the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the other bishops who received their sees since January 1848, will receive exactly the income which Parliament had assigned to them. With regard to the other bishops, as to the propriety or justice of the arrangement, of course it was not a matter on which he was then called on to speak; but it was quite evident that those bishops who received their incomes under the provisions of the former Act had just as much right to them as any person had to an estate settled on him for life, and that there would be no more justice in Parliament interfering with those incomes than with any other private property. With regard to the facts, he believed that, generally speaking, the bishops who had received more than the sum assigned to them under the Act, had retained it according to their rights by law. At the same time, he should state that the Bishop of Durham was an exception, because he had paid over a larger sum than he was compelled to do. It had been supposed, that if he gave up 11,000 l. a year, and surrendered an estate of 2,000 l. a year, it would have reduced his income to 8,000 l.; but he had paid to the Commissioners an additional sum of 8,766 l., and he had also intimated to the Commissioners his intention to pay a sum of 3,000 l. a year more than was specified by the Act, so long as he held the see. It should likewise be stated, that he succeeded a bishop whose income was 23,000 l. or 24,000 l. a year, and whose charities, and expenses in his diocese, including contributions to new churches, increasing the incomes of the poorer clergy and the like, were commensurate with it. Thus very considerable demands had been thrown upon the present bishop, and he had contributed no less a sum than 45,460 l. in this way. The next question of the hon. Gentleman related to those bishops who were obliged, according to the Act, to pay over certain sums which it was supposed wsuld be in excess upon the incomes assigned to them. Those bishops, generally speaking, had complied with the law; but at the same time there were some who had
566
received much less than it was expected, and the consequence had been, they had been unable to pay over the entire sum due from them. Thus the Bishop of Ely was indebted to a considerable amount to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners; but at no time had he received more than the income which was assigned to him originally by the Commissioners, and by the Act of Parliament. The arrangement made by the Commissioners was certainly not to proceed by law against these prelates, but to inform them from time to time in what sum they were indebted, and request them to pay as soon as they could what was due. He believed that the Archbishop of York had already paid all he owed; and the Bishop of St. Asaph's had been for some time engaged in reducing his debt, which in a very short time would be paid off. There remained, therefore, only the case of the Bishop of Ely; and there was every reason to suppose that the Bishop of Ely, if he lived, would, from the emoluments of his see, be able to pay the sum due from him. The Commissioners, certainly, seeing that he did not receive the amount assigned him, had forborne pressing him, being quite convinced of his willingness to pay over the sum due when income would allow of it. The further question of the hon. Gentleman was with regard to the Bishop of Salisbury. He was the only bishop whom he (Lord John Russell) had seen since his hon. Friend had given notice of his Motion; and the right rev. Prelate had put into his hands a letter, which he had written in the month of February last, and in which he proposed to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners that his income should be in future that which had been assigned to his see by the Commission, namely, 5,000 l. a year. The right rev. Prelate had therefore voluntarily come under the provisions of the Act of Parliament. The Commissioners had accepted the proposal, and in future he would receive a fixed income, like the Archbishop of Canterbury, who was by law under the Act. He (Lord J. Russell) did not know whether any other bishop had followed the example; but in the course of time all the sees would come under the operation of the Act of Parliament.

THE LAW OF QUARANTINE—GREECE—PERSIA.
MR. URQUHARTwished to ask the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary—first, whether any steps had been taken by the

567
Government with regard to the proposed conference at Paris on the law of quarantine in the Mediterranean; secondly, whether any thing had been done respecting the settlement of the claims of Greece; and, thirdly, whether he proposed to lay on the table the orders, and returns to the orders, passed by the House as to the Turco-Persian frontier?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, in answer to the first question of the hon. Gentleman, that the Government had been invited some months ago by the Government of Prance to take part in certain conferences to be held somewhere in Prance, probably in Paris, on the subject of quarantine, to which conferences all States having territories bordering on or within the Mediterranean were invited to take part. Her Majesty's Government were sensible of the extreme importance of the matter, and were very anxious to obtain certain modifications and improvements in the existing regulations of the law of quarantine, and, therefore, had no hesitation in accepting that invitation. The conference was to be held in the course of a few days, he believed, at Paris, and the Government had appointed a medical man and a consular officer to attend it. As to the claims on Greece, they were all settled last year, with the exception of that of Don Pacifico, on account of alleged losses occasioned by the destruction at Athens of certain documents connected with claims he purported to have against the Government of Portugal. The House would remember that the principle laid down by the British Government on the matter was, that to whatever extent Don Pacifico could show that he had been prevented, by the loss in question, from substantiating any claims of his against the Portuguese Government, to that extent the Greek Government was bound to indemnify him. This principle had been adopted by the Government of Greece and by the Government of France, and accordingly Commissioners on the part of England, France, and Greece respectively, had met at Lisbon, where, after close inquiry, they found that all the documents upon which Don Pacifico grounded his claim, existed, in original or in duplicate, in the archives of Lisbon, so that the destruction of any copies at Athens did not at all prevent Don Pacifico from substantiating his claim. The Commissioners, however, in consequence of the inconvenience and expense to which Don Pacifico had been subjected in prosecuting
568
the matter, recommended that a sum of 150 l. should be paid to him by the Greek Government, which sum Don Pacifico had accordingly received. As to the hon. Gentleman's third question, he rather thought that the papers the hon. Gentleman sought had been already presented; but, if not, they should be laid on the table.

COURT OF CHANCERY AND JUDICIAL COMMITTEE BILL.
Order for Third Reading read.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be read a Third Time."
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, that he did not mean to object to the third reading of this Bill, but he protested against the mode adopted of paying the Judges, who ought not to be paid out of the Suitors' Fund, but out of the Consolidated Fund. He protested also against this measure being considered as a reform in the Court of Chancery. He did not deny that two new Judges might not palliate some of the evils which arose from the delay of business in that Court; but he hoped the Government would bestow their serious attention upon the evils of the present system, and devise some speedy remedy. Don't let the Government imagine that, having passed this measure, they had settled the question of Chancery reform, or any thing of the sort. The present fee system, with its 100 fees, and its 40 feetakers, was one of the grand bases of the mischief, and must be utterly removed, and an end must be put to the anomalies and mystifications, and corruptions, and extortions of the Suitors' Fee Fund and the Suitors' Fund. It was but last year that he had presented the petition from the Corporation of Hastings, stating that an unopposed claim for 136 l. cost them 189 l.
MR. HUMEwas of opinion that the Suitors' Fund and the Suitors' Fee Fund might be consolidated with advantage.
SIR GEORGE STRICKLANDprotested against this Bill being considered any answer to that demand which was now so universally made for the reform of the Court of Chancery. He quite agreed with the right hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon (Sir J.Graham), who had stated that this was beginning at the wrong end. It was necessary to reform altogether the system which caused such ruinous delay. His opinion was that, instead of being any real benefit to the people, this Bill would only

569
add to the grievance of which they already complained. He knew of an instance in which the Court of Chancery took nine years to decide whether it had jurisdiction over a cause. The matter was ultimately tried in a Court of Common Law, and the whole merits of the question were absolutely disposed of in nine hours. The preliminary point of jurisdiction would have been decided by a Judge at Chambers in ten minutes or a quarter of an hour.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLhad not at all put forward this measure as the Chancery Reform Bill which was required to meet the case. The question of fees was one which merited the amplest consideration, and he should be most glad, when the materials were before him, to apply his best efforts to remedy every evil connected with that and all other branches of the system.
MR. ALCOCKsaid, he felt bound to complain that no provision was made by the Bill respecting the Church patronage of the Lord Chancellor.
MR. SPEAKERintimated that the hon. Member was out of order, as the patronage of the Lord Chancellor had nothing to do with the question before the House.
MR. SLANEYsaid, he did not mean to oppose the Bill. But as he had been the Chairman of a Committee for inquiring into the mode in which the suits of persons engaged in commercial transactions were conducted, he felt it his duty to warn the House and the Government of the pressing necessity of passing some measure for facilitating the settlement of those suits. No judicial arrangements could be more cumbersome, expensive, and unsatisfactory, than the present mode of terminating before the Court of Chancery disputes which arose out of commercial partnerships.
Bill read 3°, and passed.

THE BISHOP OF ST. DAVID'S.
On the Question that the Speaker do leave the Chair to go into Committee of Supply,
MR. MONCKTON MILNESsaid, he was requested by the Bishop of St. David's to give his unqualified contradiction to an assertion which was made the other evening by the hon. Baronet the Member for Marylebone (Sir B. Hall). The hon. Baronet asserted, without any proof, that that distinguished prelate had prohibited his archdeacons from visiting that diocese. Now, he (Mr. M. Milnes) was authorised to state that the right rev. Prelate had never forbidden them to visit
570
any portion of his diocese. When the Bishop of St. David's came into the diocese, it was true that the archdeacons were not in the habit of visiting. One of them was the vicar of Carmarthen, a large parish with a very poor living; and another was the master of an academy in Edinburgh, and therefore lived out of the diocese and the jurisdiction of the bishop. A third (Mr. Davies, he believed) was in the continual habit of visiting his archdeaconry. He (Mr. M. Milnes) was quite sure that the distinguished Prelate would be the last man in the world to wish to impose upon the House in any way, as to the condition of the diocese. He (Mr. M. Milnes) believed that the right rev. Prelate was agreed on all fundamental points with the hon. Baronet as to the miserably neglected condition of a large portion of his see; but this arose from circumstances over which the bishop had no control. The archdeacons had not been appointed by him, nor could he dismiss them; and therefore the hon. Baronet really had no grounds for bringing an accusation against a prelate not more distinguished by his European reputation for learning, than by the simplicity and frugality of his life, and his genuine Christian charity. On a former occasion the hon. Gentleman had made an attack upon the right rev. Prelate, which, however, on further reflection, he had withdrawn, namely, that he (the right rev. Prelate) had appointed himself Dean of Brecon; and he (Mr. M. Milnes) therefore hoped that the hon. Baronet would also withdraw this assertion, which was equally unjustifiable.
SIR BENJAMIN HALL: I have been asked by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract to withdraw this assertion. I decline to do any such thing. The statement I made to the House was this. In describing the condition of the diocese of St. David's, and quoting from the Report to the House of the Commission which was appointed by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon (Sir J. Graham) to inquire into the state of education in Wales, and which had reported on the most lamentable condition of the churches in that diocese, I said, that notwithstanding this Report had been laid on the table of the House, and that the greatest publicity had been given to it—notwithstanding that it had been brought under the notice of the right rev. Prelate himself, and notwithstanding that there were four archdeacons in the diocese—

571
there had not, to the best of my belief, and I believe so still, been a single visitation during the eleven years Dr. Thirlwall had been in the diocese. I also stated, that I was informed in conversation with one of the archdeacons, that the bishop had prevented himself from holding an archidiaconal visitation. That was the statement I made to the House, and by that statement I will abide. It is for the right rev. Prelate to settle the matter with the archdeacon who gave me the information upon which I founded my statement; but it so happens that this very morning I received a letter from the archdeacon, inclosing a communication from the bishop, in which he desires to know the circumstances of the case. It would certainly have been more convenient, I think, both for the bishop and for my hon. Friend (Mr. M. Milnes) if he had followed my advice, and had first looked at my answer, which I was prepared to place in his hand, and which I would have brought down to the House had I been informed that he was about to introduce the subject. In my answer to the archdeacon, I have recalled to him the conversation which I had with him at my own house, and in which I expressed my regret at the lamentable and disgraceful state of the diocese of St. David's, and also that he, being one of the archdeacons, should not have had a visitation. In reply he told me that he was prepared to make a visitation, and had got ready his charge written in the Welsh language, to read to those who should have come to hear it, but he was prevented by the bishop from making that visitation. That is my statement, and to that statement I will abide. I declare that I never saw any diocese, or any place in the United Kingdom, in so disgraceful a condition as regards the state of the churches, as may be seen by a reference to the report of the Government Commissioners. If any hon. Gentleman will go himself into the diocese, he will find churches without windows and without roofs, and yet an archdeacon is not allowed to make visitations.
MR. MORRISwas a resident in the diocese of St. David's, but he had never heard that the bishop had prevented archdeacons' meetings. On the contrary, he had regularly seen notices of the visitations in the country papers, and therefore he supposed they had been regularly held. He would venture to say that there was not in the whole diocese a clergyman who
572
worked harder than the bishop who presided over the see.
Subject dropped.

CATHEDRAL TRUSTS—THE ROCHESTER GRAMMAR SCHOOL.
Order for Committee of Supply read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
MR. MOWATTsaid, he rose to call the attention of the House to the case of the Rochester Cathedral Grammar School, and to the administration of the Educational Trusts confided to the Cathedral Establishments of the Kingdom. The subject was not altogether alien to that just discussed, and was one of the greatest reproaches to the Church of England. Though his Motion related to the oppression which had been suffered by an individual in a good cause, it was intimately connected with the question of education generally, in which all parties and classes in this country had of late interested themselves. The particular case he would dismiss in few words. Early in 1848, the Rev. Mr. Whiston, then head master of the Rochester Cathedral Grammar School, applied by letter to the dean and chapter, under whose more immediate authority he held his office, representing to them that the fittings and other ordinary necessaries of the grammar school were defective, and pointing out that the four exhibitions attached to the school—which he hoped to make one of the great inducements to the gentry of the neighbourhood and the middle classes to send their sons there—were altogether insufficient, and unsuitable to the necessities and wants of the parties holding them. He pointed out that, although in 1542, when the school was endowed, in common with the cathedral institution, of which it formed a part, the sum of 5l. allotted to each exhibitioner was amply sufficient, being equal to about 80 l. at the present day, yet that it was now palpably inadequate for the purposes for which those exhibitions were originally established. But without the smallest reference to the manifest intention of the donor, or the increased value of the estate, the literal 5l. only was continued to be doled out. The dean and chapter answered, to the effect, that although they admitted the facts to be substantially correct, he (Mr. Whiston) was wrong in the inference drawn as to the obligation imposed upon them by the statutes. Mr. Whiston replied

573
by quoting at length and verbatim various extracts from the statutes by which the cathedral and grammar school of Rochester were founded and endowed by the munificence of Henry VIII. The dean and chapter cut the matter short by desiring Mr. Whiston, as one who was in their service and employment, and consequently from whom they had a right to expect deference and obedience, to close the correspondence. He, having at heart the welfare of the school, appealed instead to the public. He first, however, made some further efforts to arouse the dean and chapter to a sense of their duty; and, amongst other steps, he submitted a case to the then Attorney General, Sir John Romilly, and another eminent lawyer, Mr. W. D. Lewis of the Equity bar, inviting their opinion as to the construction of the statutes. Finding, however, single-handed and powerless as he was, that he was unable to obtain redress from that wealthy body, he ultimately published a work, entitled, Cathedral Trusts and their Fulfilment, having for its object to arouse the attention and invite the sympathy of the public on behalf of a cause so well advocated, and its interference between himself and the Dean and Chapter of Rochester. For this offence, as they were pleased to term it, they dismissed him from his office, alleging that a man capable of making statements reflecting indirectly so grossly upon the character of the clergymen composing the deanery and chapter of Rochester was altogether unworthy to be entrusted with the instruction of boys at that grammar school. Such a conclusion as that would altogether depend on the truth or otherwise of the facts put forth in the rev. gentleman's work, and on the spirit in which he commented upon those facts, supposing them to be true. If any obloquy attached to the dean and chapter, it was simply because the facts were true and undoubted, and not because of any comments which he had thought it his duty to make. The facts themselves were of so damning a character to that body, that any comment on them was superfluous. This case was of necessity mixed up with the question of the administration of educational trusts by the cathedral bodies of the kingdom generally; and it was impossible to treat of this single case without touching on the grammar schools connected with other cathedral bodies. The preamble to the general statutes regulating cathedrals stated, amongst other things, that these bodies had been founded and endowed for these purposes—
574
"That youth might be liberally trained, old age provided with things necessary for living, that there might be liberal largesses of alms to the poor—for the repairs of roads and bridges—and that other offices of piety might thence flow abroad far and wide to all the neighbouring places, to the glory of Almighty God, and the common welfare and happiness of the subjects of these realms."
The words of the Rochester statutes plainly showed that the grammar sshool boys, and the four exhibitioners, had a claim upon the foundation for their "sustentation," in the words of the statutes. In page 89, it was stated, "We ordain that there shall be for ever, in the founder's church at Rochester, twenty poor boys maintained out of the cathedral revenues." That was repeated in the statutes half a dozen times, in one shape or another. A few lines further was the following: "We will that these boys be maintained, or have their alimony at the cost of our church at Rochester." In page 10, again, it spoke of those boys as "those who are maintained at the charge of our church." At page 96, they were spoken of as "the boys learning the grammar, and having their victuals or living given them for nothing." Subsequently, in page 107, it spoke of "the four students or scholars sent with exhibitions to the two universities." It said, "We ordain that out of the funds of our Church four poor scholars be always maintained in our universities." The revised cathedral statutes of Elizabeth, confirming those in all essential points, had these words, in reference to the same subject:—
"Moreover, we ordain that out of the whole number of the grammar boys who have their sustentation in our Church, there be for ever maintained of those who have made greater progress than the rest—where fifty scholars, ten students; where forty scholars, there eight students; where twenty-four scholars, there four students; where eighteen scholars, there two students in our university at Cambridge, and the same number at Oxford, to whom let the usual stipend be paid annually, for six years, unless they shall have gained a fellowship in any one of the colleges."
Again, in the 25th chapter of the Elizabethan statutes, relating to the duties of the dean, were these words: "Let him also look after the health of those boys, whose liberal bringing up, both in learning and at the table, we commit to his honour." It was to be regretted that the founder had not provided a better security for the fulfilment of his wishes than this frail reliance. The fresh statutes of Charles I. and II. were to the same effect. These were again ratified by Act of Parliament, 6 Anne, cap. 21, confirming the rights of

575
the boys, and repeating the very words of the statute. The Durham statute contained the following:—
"We direct and ordain that there be for ever in the said church one dean, twelve prebendaries, twelve minor canons, one deacon, one subdeacon, ten clerks, one master of the choristers, ten choristers, two teachers of the boys in grammar, and eighteen boys to be instructed in grammar."
The words of the Canterbury statutes were similar, the number of scholars varying. He would now cite the part of the Rochester statutes allotting precise amounts to each of these classes:—
"The dean is to have 100 l.; six prebendaries, each to have 20 l.; six minor canons, each 10 l.; the master of the grammar school to have 13 l. 6s. 8d.; the master of the choristers, 10 l.; the second grammar master, 6l. 11 s. 10 d.; twenty grammar boys, each to be allowed 1l. 13 s. 4d.; four students at Oxford and Cambridge, each 6l. 13 s. 4d., or 26 l. 13 s. 4d.
These sums, though small in the present day, were of about sixteen times the value in 1542, and thus formed an adequate remuneration to the respective officers. The House must admit that the fact contended for by Mr. Whiston as to the construction of the statutes was established—that the endowment of Henry VIII. in 1542 made express provision, foremost among other things, and only second to the more important spiritual objects contemplated, for the training and education of youth. The educational trust was, beyond all question, contemplated as one of the most important committed to the care of these bodies. Though he had specified the Rochester case particularly, his facts and arguments applied to all similar trusts. The charters were in the form of deeds of trust, requiring them to undertake the care of the schools, which was then, as now, thought a subject of vital importance. The effect of twelve or thirteen trained grammar schools upheld by these cathedral bodies, would, were the trusts properly executed, form a nucleus in all the large towns whence the most beneficial effects would flow. The cathedral of Canterbury was required to provide sustentation for fifty boys, for which 4l. each, or about 60 l. at the present day, was allotted. Those boys, in the skeleton of a school at Canterbury, had been cut down from 4l. to 1l. 8s. 4d. Westminster had funds, and was enjoined to provide for forty boys. It had carried out to a great extent the intention of the founders, although of late years it had levied 3,500 l. from the boys, on the plea of extending the building—notwithstanding that in the endowment express provision had been made
576
for all wants relative thereto. Worcester had reduced the stipend of its forty boys, and probably the number, from 2l. 13 s. 4d. to 5s. 10 d. Ely, which had no less than 300 scholars in the 16th century, had now only twenty-four; Peterborough had twenty, and Rochester had either eighteen or twenty, making in the whole 212 free scholarships, and between fifty and sixty exhibitioners to the universities. There were, besides, twenty-four scholars at Chester; twenty at Bristol; twenty at Carlisle, where a few years ago the school was shut up altogether; and twenty at Gloucester. The whole number to be provided for by the statutes of these eleven cathedral bodies was 296, and about fifty-six exhibitors. Such a provision as this could not possibly be overrated in the present day, when the want of education was so much felt. Had the cathedral bodies carried out their trusts? He would now refer to the opinions of the Master of the Rolls and Mr. W. D. Lewis, who was an ornament to the legal profession. The questions and answers were as follows:—

"1. Are the Dean and Chapter of Rochester under a legal obligation to allow the four university students, created by their cathedral statutes, a yearly sum of money out of the common funds of the cathedral, sufficient for the 'alimony' or maintenance of the said students, so long as they comply with the conditions of the statutes, in respect of residence at the university, and provided they take the degrees of B. A. and M. A. at the usual times?

"2. Are the said dean and chapter under a legal obligation to provide for, or to defray the costs of the maintenance of the twenty foundation scholars created by the said statutes, out of the common funds of the cathedral?

"3. Does not the word 'alere,' used in those statutes, impose upon the dean and chapter the legal obligation of providing for the said four students and the said twenty scholars what may be called 'alimony' to the extent of board and lodging at least?

"4. Do the terms of the grant by which the cathedral lands, &c., are given to the corporation of the dean and chapter, or does the fact of 5l. being assigned as a pension or stipend to the said four students, and 10 d. a week for commons, with 8s. 4d. a year for livery, and 1s. 8d. for stipend to the said twenty scholars, or does desuetude, or any other legally valid plea, release the dean and chapter from the obligation of providing for the maintenance of the four students, and the twenty scholars, to the extent of board and lodging at the least?

"5. Is an appeal to the bishop of the diocese the proper step to take in the event of the dean and chapter refusing to provide the maintenance aforesaid?"

"We have met in consultation on this case, and are of opinion—

"1. That the Dean and Chapter of Rochester are, by virtue of the letters-patent and charters

577
of Henry VIII., respectively called the 'Fundatio,' 'Dotatio,' and 'Statuta,' under an obligation in the nature of a trust, to allow, out of the common funds of the cathedral, to the four university students nominated from time to time, pursuant to the statutes, a yearly sum of money sufficient for their maintenance at the university, subject to their complying with the conditions of the statutes in respect of residence at the university and taking their degrees. The treasurer of the cathedral is, by the statutes, the officer appointed to make these payments.

"2. We are of opinion that the dean and chapter, upon the same letters-patent and charters, are under an obligation in the nature of a trust, to provide for, or to defray the costs of the 'maintenance' (according to the language of the statutes) of the twenty foundation scholars, nominated pursuant to the statutes, out of the common funds of the cathedral. The treasurer is also the officer appointed to make these payments.

"3. We think that the proportion of the increased income applicable for the maintenance of the university students and foundation scholars is to be regulated by the proportion which the statutable stipends assigned for their benefit, bear to the other stipends assigned by the statutes. Should the share thus ascertained be found more than adequate to provide board and lodging for the four university students and twenty foundation scholars, it may be doubtful whether the surplus would go in augmentation of their 'maintenance,' or in the extension of the limits of the charity, to other students and scholars.

"4. We are of opinion that, in this case, desuetude would not constitute a valid plea to release the dean and chapter from the obligation which (as above stated) the statutes impose upon them. With regard to the terms of the grant (dotatio), we think that there is nothing in it to conflict with what we have already stated to be, in our opinion, the proper interpretation of the statutes. On the contrary, as the grant was made in puram et perpetuam eleemosynam, and as the dean and chapter were empowered to hold lands by the "Fundatio," subject to the observance of the ordinances which the founder then had in contemplation, and as the then annual value of the estates was exhausted by the statutable allowances and apportionments, we think that the increase of the rents became applicable to the augmentation, pro rata, of the various specific payments directed by the statutes, or to corresponding purposes, upon the principle of cy-près applied to charities.

"5. Should the dean and chapter or the treasurer refuse to provide for the purposes above specified, application should, in the first instance, be made to the Bishop of Rochester, as visitor, to correct the evil: but probably the visitor, in the exercise of his discretion, would think it proper that the matter should go to the Court of Chancery, to be adjusted there, and would so act as to effect that object.

"JOHN ROMILLY,
"WILLIAM DAVID LEWIS.
"Lincoln's Inn, November 25."
He thought if any doubt had existed in the minds of hon. Gentlemen, they should be put an end to by these plain, decided, and unequivocal opinions, coming from such high legal and equitable authorities. That
578
being the case, he would now state what had been the conduct of the Dean and Chapter of the Rochester Cathedral with respect to the education confided to their trust. The sum of 53 l. 6s. 8d., allotted to that school in 1542, would, at the present day, amount to about 853 l. 6s. 8d.; that was to say, that if the dean and chapter had allotted pro rata the funds intrusted to them, it would have been their plain duty to have allotted at least that sum to the support of the two masters, the twenty boys, and the four exhibitioners; or, if they had increased those stipends in the same ratio as they had increased their own, the sum to be allotted would amount to 1,812 l. 13 s. 4d. But during the years 1831, 1832, 1833, 1834, 1835, 1836, 1837, and 1838, the sums which they had paid for this purpose out of their prodigiously increased revenues were severally 9l., 6l., 5l., 5l., 6l., 3l., 1l., and 1l., until at last, in 1839, there was neither scholar nor school at all. They had pulled the building down, sold the site, and there was no boy to receive anything. That was the manner in which these gentlemen discharged the trust confided to them; though, as he had before stated, they had increased their own stipends by thirty-four times the amount originally intended for them. In a short time subsequently, being alarmed by the commentaries of the press on the subject, they built another school, and gave as a reason for disposing of the old one, that it was out of repair. He believed that during the present century the Dean and Chapter of Rochester had divided among themselves the sum of 5,000 l. which ought to have been devoted to educational purposes. Now, he felt bound to observe that the Dean and Chapter of Rochester had not disputed any of these facts; and he could not help thinking that the mere statement of the facts, as far as they went, by any person, could not form a sufficient justification for the dismissal, by the dean and chapter, of the individual who might give publicity to them. But it so happened that the dean and chapter did dismiss Mr. Winston, the head master of the school, for publishing these facts, stating that, in their opinion, the man who could make use of the language which he did in his work on the subject, was unworthy to discharge the functions of head master of the Rochester grammar school. Now he (Mr. Mowatt) referred with confidence to that work, and defied any hon. Gentleman to point his

579
finger at any phrase therein not justified by the facts of the case. It was true that it characterised the conduct of the dean and chapter as unbecoming that of gentlemen, much less clergymen and trustees, bound to administer money placed in their hands for educational and charitable purposes. Mr. Whiston certainly did make use of strong language; but then that language was pertinent, and strictly applicable to the facts brought forward. No remedy whatever existed for this case of oppression. First, the dean and chapter had the power to dismiss Mr. Whiston; and next, it was impossible for the bishop to interpose in his behalf without bringing on himself the most signal condemnation, since the Bishop of Rochester was himself previously Dean of Worcester, and, in that capacity had sanctioned similar misappropriation of the funds of that Church. Whilst Dean of Worcester, he had cut down the stipends allotted for the support of the scholars from 2l. 13 s. 1d. to 5s. 10 d. However, Mr. Whiston having made an appeal, not with reference to his dismissal, but with reference to the dean and chapter declining to fulfil their proper functions, the bishop, after keeping him some months in correspondence, and in suspense, finally said, "I think, after all, your best way is to go to Chancery," meaning, probably, by that, that he might go to some other place not mentionable to ears polite. So that it was no far-fetched deduction to say that it would be idle to apply to a man to decide as a judge whose antecedents made it impossible for him to decide without condemning himself. Fortunately for the scholars, Mr. Whiston was a man not disposed to yield tamely to such proceedings, and he consequently appealed to the public, through his work entitled Cathedral Trusts and their Fulfilment, which had, however, meanwhile the effect with his self-constituted judges of confirming his dismissal. In that state of things he applied to the Court of Queen's Bench, and obtained a mandamus, compelling the dean and chapter to restore him to his office, or to show cause for not complying. He might observe that Mr. Whiston adopted that course more with the hope of inducing his opponents to meet him on the merits of the case, than with any other intention. But they abstained from putting in their case the opinions of their counsel in relation to the matter; and, therefore, he thought he might conclude that these opinions were
580
confirmatory of those which he had already quoted as expressed by the present Master of the Rolls and Mr. Lewis. The dean and chapter met him, however, on technical grounds, stating that he should have applied in the first instance to the bishop, as visitor, and in case of his refusing to entertain the case, then he (Mr. Whiston) would have been justified in going before the Queen's Bench. Now, in his (Mr. Mowatt's) opinion, that was an admission of the substantial merits of the case. He would refer to a table showing the comparative value of the cathedral endowments in 1542, when they were founded, and at the present day, with accounts of the sums drawn by the dean and chapter for their own emolument, and also of those expended upon schools. The original endowment of the Cathedral of Canterbury was 2,547 l. 18 s.; the present value, 84,525 l.; gross receipts, as returned by the dean and chapter, on an average of seven years ending 1834, were 15,463 l. In 1542 the sum expended on schools was 430 l., or one-sixth of its total revenue; in 1834 the chapter expended only 1–464th part of its revenues on educational purposes. The original endowment of Bristol was 688 1. 9s. 9d.; its value by the last returns was 24,780 l.; the proportion received in this case by its dean and chapter was 4,489 l. The amount expended upon schools at the period of its foundation was 20 l., or 1-34th of the revenues; it was now only 1–279th part of the revenues. He would not weary the House by going over all the cases. He would take that of Rochester, with which he was more immediately concerned. The original endowment of Rochester Cathedral was 820 l. 10 s.; by the last return the value was 29,538 l., out of which the dean and chapter took directly, 7,099 l. The amount expended in 1542 on the school was 99 l. 18 s. 6d., or one-eighth of its whole revenue; whilst the proportion expended in 1834, before the school was closed, was 1–233rd part. With more or less variation, the same enormous disparity existed in all the other cases. He would refer to the return of the Cathedral incomes for the two periods, because it showed the distribution of the revenues amongst the different dignitaries and officers of the chapters. In 1542 the Dean of Canterbury received 300 l.; in 1831–1849, his income averaged 2,050 l. In 1542 the Dean of Rochester received 100 l., in 1840 he received 1,426 l. In 1542 the Dean of Peterborough received 100 l.; in

581
1849 he received 1,166 l. In 1542 the Dean of Gloucester received 100 l.; he received 1,100 l. in 1840. In 1562 the Dean of Worcester received 123 l.; at present he received 1,486 l. The canons of Canterbury, in 1542, received 40 l. 2s. 11 d.; in 1849, 1,010 l. At Rochester, the stipend of each prebendary was 20 l. in 1542; whilst, in 1840, it was 680 l. 19 s. At Peterborough it was 20 l., in 1542, and 539 l. at present; and so on all the way through. He might be allowed to read the words of the oath taken by the deans and canons of cathedrals, that the House might see how badly, even according to their own interpretation, they fulfilled the duties that devolved upon them by virtue of their offices:—
"I, A. B., who have been nominated, elected. and instituted canon (or dean) of this cathedral church, having in my hand the Holy Gospels of God, swear that I will keep all and every one of the statutes and ordinances of King Henry VIII., our founder, and will take care that they shall be kept by others, so far as in me lies; and that I will not hinder what may be lawfully done for the profit and honour of this church, but will study and promote its interests. All and every one of these things I will take to mind, study, and observe, so far as in me lies."
By way of contrast, he wished to refer to the management of Trinity College, Cambridge. The sixty scholars in that College were each originally allowed only 3l. 18 s. 4d. per year as their total stipend or allowance; but that sum had been increased to 64 l. 7s. 8d. each. In Winchester school the increase had been from 3l. 6s. 8d. per scholar per annum to 50 l.; and in Durham school the increase was in like proportion. It was not his (Mr. Mowatt's) intention to go into evidence of the other abuses that existed amongst these cathedral bodies, and the violation of their trust in other than educational matters; but he thought he might contrast their conduct to the scholars with that which they pursued in their own individual cases, to show that they were not altogether insensible of the advantage of possessing money. It was remarkable, as an illustration of the value set upon money by the members of these institutions, that a prebendary of I Canterbury, who had put himself forward conspicuously with his comments on the case of Mr. Whiston, whom he accused of forwarding the cause of atheists and levellers, was a pluralist, who, far from being content with his prebendal income of 1,000 l., held benefices and preferments of various kinds amounting to the yearly
582
value of 6,217 l. 5s. With regard to the Dean and Chapter of Rochester, he only wished to add that they—robbed, he was going to say—but not liking to make use of strong language, he would merely say that they appropriated to themselves the funds set apart for the benefit of the students; and although their statutes expressly set forth
—"that in order that the minor canons and priests of the church may diligently attend to the duties of the church, we allow them licence to hold one and only one ecclesiastical benefice with the aforesaid services, provided that such benefice is not more than twenty-four miles from Rochester."
Still, nevertheless, the three prebendal priests of the church held benefices more than one in number, and at more than 100 miles' distance from the cathedral. The value of the livings held by the deans and five canons was returned at 7,740 l., exclusive of their own immediate revenues as deans and canons of that cathedral, amounting to 4,830 l. per annum; or a total income of 12,570 l. They had also appropriated the funds of a lepers' hospital of which they were patrons, as successors of the former priors of Rochester, to such an extent that from 1822 to 1835 the dean received, for fines for the renewal of leases alone, no less a sum than 5,707 l. 7s. 10 d. Besides all this, the value of the patronage in the hands of the dean and canons, and enjoyed by their connections, was 4,940 l. As an additional instance of the rapacity of the dean and chapter, he begged to state the following case to the House. A few years ago, one of the canons died, and his canonry lapsed to the Ecclesiastical Commission, so that a dean and five canons were left for the "spiritual services," at the rate of 4,830 l. a year for what they might do. Accordingly, on their praying to he relieved from the additional duty by the appointment of a substitute, the Commissioners consented, and allowed 50 l. a month for it. The chapter then selected, and the bishop approved as a substitute, the most heavily burthened canon of those who had prayed to be relieved from labours which, for the most part, were now discharged by the minor canons, but without any of the 50 l. He would state another case, reflecting, in his opinion in like manner, on one of the prebendaries of Rochester. The Charter House provided an exhibition of 20 l. a year for eight years "for the children only of such as have not the means to bring them up." Now, one of the pre-

583
bendaries of the cathedral, who enjoyed an income of 2,251 l. and a living worth in tithes 953 l., and who solicited an increase of stipend from the Lepers' Hospital, got an exhibition of 100 l. a year for his own son for the eight years, whilst he refused to admit the allowance beyond the original 5l. to the poor scholars, and which by the charter they were to be allowed to enable them to pursue their studies at the school. Just fancy a man with such an income quartering his own son on the establishment with an exhibition of 100 l. a year, and yet having the heart to confine the others to 5l. He was now about to ask the House to address the Crown for a Commission to inquire into the administration of the educational trusts confided to the cathedral establishments of the kingdom, and he hoped that no member of Her Majesty's Government would offer any objection to the proposal. He would not beforehand, at all events, do any member of the Government the injustice to suppose that they could be so indifferent to the interests of the country, in so far as they were connected with education, as to throw the slightest impediment in the way of any bonâ fide remedial measure that might be proposed to the House, unless it were open to some very strong objections. He inferred, however, that this Motion would be opposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Goulburn). He had no desire to speak disrespectfully of that right hon. Gentleman, nor would he say it offensively, but he must remark that he thought that right hon. Gentleman stood in a false position with respect to this question, for he stood in the position of the hired advocate of the Ecclesiastical Commission, and had always in that character advocated all the abuses that came within the cognisance of that commission. Now, although Henry VIII., when he founded these cathedral bodies in 1542, had passed statutes for their government, he never intended to part with the control over them, for, within four years after their establishment, a Commission was issued to inquire into the manner in which the trusts confided to them had been carried out. He thought that, when such maladministration as he had shown existed, it was quite consistent with the obligations of the Crown to grant such a Commission of inquiry as he sought. He could not be met by the assertion that this was a trifling matter, or one in which
584
the Government were not interested; for he would ask if it could be considered as a matter of trifling importance the scandalous misappropriation he had demonstrated of the munificent endowments created for the education, to a certain extent, of the people of the present and all future ages? In the words of the hon. Member for the University of Oxford, "What advantage is there to the community that might not flow out of these establishments, if they had been properly administered?" Let any man reflect upon the advantage which it would be to have a first-rate grammar school in every cathedral town throughout the kingdom. It would be difficult to over-estimate the beneficial results that might he expected from such academical establishments, so managed as to serve as models for similar institutions all over the country. It was impossible to give an impetus to the education of the upper classes without its exercising a great influence upon the lower classes.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out from the word 'That' to the, end of the Question, in order to add the words, 'an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to appoint a Commission to inquire into and report upon the administration of the Educational Trusts confided to the Cathedral Establishments of the Kingdom.'"
MR. HORSMANseconded the Motion.
The SOLICITOR GENERALcould assure the hon. Member who had just resumed his seat that he had no doubt whatever of the purity of his motives, and his anxious desire, in bringing forward this Motion, to promote that which he felt to be a great public end; but, on the other hand, he (the Solicitor General) was entitled to ask from the hon. Member a little forbearance and consideration with reference to the motives of others who might not precisely agree with his views upon this subject, and towards whom he had used expressions which were hardly justifiable. The hon. Gentleman had termed the Dean and Chapter of Rochester robbers, and had also said that the Bishop of Rochester had so conducted himself that it was impossible for Mr. Whiston to obtain justice at his hands. The hon. Gentleman had also said that the right hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Goulburn), from whom he seemed to expect some opposition, was not to be credited on a subject of this kind. [Mr. MOWATT: No, no!] The hon Member said, at least, that that right hon.

585
Gentleman had placed himself in a false position in that House, because he was receiving an income as one of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. The real question before the House, upon which the hon. Member had moved his Amendment, was whether they should go into a Committee of Supply. Of course, it was quite competent for the hon. Member to bring forward such a Motion upon such an occasion; but it was equally competent for persons who might feel the deepest interest in education (and quite apart from any objections that might be urged to the Motion), to say that, at this period of the Session, they thought it more important that the House should go into a Committee of Supply, than that it should enter into an inquiry of this particular description. He should not, however, rest the question there. There were other objections to the Motion which must be apparent to every one. The hon. Member had rested his Motion so entirely upon the case of the dean and canons of Rochester that, during an address of more than two hours, he had not devoted more than ten minutes to other bodies, while the rest of his speech was occupied with the case of the Rev. Mr. Whiston. Now the work which that gentleman had published was unquestionably a very able one, and contained a great deal of valuable information; but it would have had much more weight had he confined himself to a statement of facts without disfiguring it with the admixture of sharp reprobation of all those with whom he had had any difference. He was not going to enter into the points of dispute between Mr. Whiston and the dean and the canons of Rochester; but he thought that the first objection which presented itself to the Motion was that it really was a Motion founded entirely on a matter now in course of adjudication before a proper tribunal; and if there was one thing more inconvenient than another, it was that, when a gentleman had unfortunately got involved in a course of litigation, and was dissatisfied with the course which it was taking, he should think it desirable that the whole of his case should be brought before that House, and that Motions should be founded on that which was in course of being determined by a competent tribunal. The Rev. Mr. Whiston had in the first instance brought his case before the Court of Chancery, where it was decided that he had taken an improper course, and that he should have applied to the Bishop as visitor; and the same deci-
586
sion was subsequently given by the Court of Queen's Bench. The question at issue, namely, whether Mr. Whiston had been unduly removed, was referred to the visitor, before whom it was now pending, and who had the legal assistance of Mr. Baron Parke, and of Dr. Lushington, the Chancellor of the diocese of Rochester. He (the Solicitor General) thought that the case of Mr. Whiston was therefore safe in the visitors' hands, and that it was undesirable to issue a Commission to inquire nominally into the administration of the educational trusts confided to the ecclesiastical establishments of the kingdom, but clearly and distinctly into this particular case of Mr. Whiston. But the fact was, that our past legislation with reference to the cathedral funds had rendered this Motion most inappropriate altogether, irrespective of the time at which it was brought forward. The proper tribunal to inquire into these trusts, if they were such, was of course the Court of Chancery, which investigated all questions relative to trusts. And if they were not trusts in the strict sense of the word, the visitor was the proper person to apply to to correct any faults in their administration. There was nothing left for a Commission to do in this matter, as Mr. Whiston had rendered inquiry utterly needless by publishing a large portion of the statutes of the different cathedral bodies, and pointing out where the rest might be obtained. So that it was easy for any body so disposed to arrive at all the necessary information with respect to these educational trusts, if trusts they were, which this information would show. He believed that it would have been wise, not as a matter of trust, but of policy, if the Legislature, before passing the Act to which he was about to refer, had taken care, in arranging the distribution of the cathedral property, to make due provision for the education of the people in connection with these collegiate establishments. But by the 3rd and 4th Victoria, c. 113, the Legislature had fixed the income of every dean and prebendary in every cathedral, and had handed over the whole surplus to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, by whom it was to be applied, after all due charges were paid (according to the 67th section), in relief of the spiritual destitution prevailing in various parts of the country. There was another provision in the 49th section, relating to grammar schools—that nothing in that Act contained should be construed to affect the

587
right of any chapter, according to the customs and laws of that chapter existing at the time of the passing of the Act, to make due provision out of the corporate revenues for the maintenance of the fabric, the support of the grammar school, and all other necessary and proper expenditure. The effect of this clause was merely to give the dean and canons the power of spending money on grammar schools according to the statutes and customs prevailing at the time the Act passed. Complaints had been made of the conduct of the Dean and Chapter of Westminster, who, instead of applying 200 l. a year to the education of forty boys, had appropriated to that purpose from 1,600 l. to 1,800 l. a year. Mr. Whiston, in the second edition of his pamphlet gave the dean and chapter due credit for this expenditure; but in the third edition, after some letters had appeared on the subject in the Times, he retracted a great portion of his praise, because the dean and chapter had compelled the boys to pay some 1,600 l. or 1.800 l. a year for other purposes wholly besides those of the original foundation. He (the Solicitor General) would only say that the statutes of the Dean and Chapter of Westminster contemplated a totally different class of scholars from those now receiving the benefits of the foundation. Those statutes referred to boys accustomed to live in the roughest manner, and who were to have no other attendance than that of three servants to the whole number of forty scholars. When increased accommodation was considered necessary for the boys, a large and commodious building was erected, and in order to pay off the charge of that building, and especially the expenses of erecting a sanatorium for sick scholars, it was requisite that a payment should be made by the boys upon the foundation; but the dean and chapter still continued to pay 1,800 l. instead of 200 l. a year towards the maintenance of the school. It became necessary, therefore, to insert a saving clause in the Act, or they would have taken away from the Westminster boys that 1,800 l. a year, which would have been handed over to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. The deans and canons, whose salaries wore fixed by this statute, could not be affected by the inquiries of the Commission; and, supposing that the Commission should decide that there were grammar schools which were not now kept up according to their ancient statutes, the question would be, if they were not trusts,
588
whether it was more expedient that the surplus arising from the chapter estates should be devoted to the grammar schools, or to the relief of spiritual instruction in populous places. Of course, if they were trusts, they were capable of being enforced; but whatever money was obtained for them must come from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and must be deducted from the funds appropriated to the relief of spiritual instruction.
MR. BERNALsaid, the case of Mr. Whiston was mixed up with a very important subject. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mowatt) had used Mr. Winston's case as an illustration of the general subject, and had brought forward the question with respect to the Dean and Chapter of Rochester as only part of the whole subject. He agreed with the hon. and learned Solicitor General that as the case of Mr. Whiston was now sub judice pendente lite, it ought not to be inquired into by that House. That individual continued to act still as master, and instructed a portion of the scholars who were voluntarily sent to him by their parents. He (Mr. Bernal) deeply regretted that such things should become matters of open scandal, and injurious to old and valuable institutions, doing no good, but exciting feelings of disgust and contempt. There had been a point referred to that night which was not sufficiently understood by the House or by the country at large—he meant the construction put by the hon. and learned Solicitor General on the statute of 3 and 4 Victoria, c. 113. If the doctrine advanced by the hon. and learned Gentleman were right, the fund was completely removed from the control of the ecclesiastical body. He agreed in thinking that the form in which the Motion was put, was not, perhaps, convenient, but the terms on which he had based it were of the greatest importance. These were points to which every Government should give their most earnest attention, and they should not allow those grievances to be bruited abroad for another year. The Church of England wanted support out of doors; it wanted that attention and reform which nothing but the action of the Government could sufficiently effect. He would ask the hon. and learned Solicitor General to explain to him how he conceived that the Dean and Chapter of Rochester could pay the salaries of six almsmen, to whom reference was made the other evening by the hon. Member for Marylebone (Sir B. Hall), if all the surplus funds be-

589
yond the salaries of the dean, archdeacon, and prebendary were expended?
The SOLICITOR GENERAL: I said, after all due charges were paid; and every such charge must come of course out of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners Fund. That is liable to make good the deficiency.
MR. BERNALthought, that whether in the shape of a Commission or an inquiry, the Government was imperatively called upon to look into this matter. No ecclesiastical body in the kingdom should withhold its compliance from the duo objects of the original holders; and if they did, it would he necessary for the Government to see that the trusts pointed out by the founders should be conscientiously observed. Whatever they thought or decided in that House, there was a spirit of inquiry and investigation abroad, and if they did not properly direct it, it might lead them into a sea of trouble and anxiety: but if they at once manifested a kindly yielding to, and a genial harmony with, the spirit of the age, they might proceed with safety. If they slumbered on in an uncertain kind of life—at times defending the ecclesiastical bodies, at others carping at them, but doing nothing—they would be behind the spirit of the age, and do their best to destroy the bulwarks of the Church, and that general spirit of religion that was inherent in the bosom of every British subject.
MR. MONCKTON MILNESbegged to bear his testimony, the result of a long and intimate acquaintance with Mr. Whiston, to that gentleman's ability and excellent character. If in his pamphlet Mr. Whiston had used any phrases which appeared to partake of unnecessary acerbity, hon. Gentlemen should not forget that that pamphlet was published only as a last resource, and after every attempt had been made on his part to bring about what he conscientiously believed to be just by fair and courteous means; and, secondly, that, when summoned before the chapter, he stated in the most positive way that he extremely regretted any violent expressions which he might have used, and that he entirely disavowed any intention of injuring or insulting any member of that body. And he (Mr. Milnes) could not but think that the chapter would have done greater justice to the religion they professed, and the establishment to which they belonged, if they had treated Mr. Whiston in a different spirit, and met his advances in an-
590
other manner. If the ease was as it had been stated by the hon. and learned Solicitor General, then indeed they had nothing whatever to do with the matter, and they would have had merely to refer Mr. Whiston to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and to say that they would be extremely glad to dispose of a larger portion of the cathedral funds in favour of this educational establishment, but they were prevented by law from doing so. The fact was, however, he could not find that the dean and chapter had ever used that argument. On the contrary, so far from that, they had always, in their communication with Mr. Whiston, stated that the question of increasing the advantages of this educational establishment was one to which they were not opposed, and to which they were perfectly willing to direct their attention. They never seemed to think for one moment that the case was out of their hands. There could be no doubt that the legal question had gone against Mr. Whiston—that the question whether these cathedral trustees were trustees in a legal sense or not had been decided against him; and his removal from the office of master was a secondary matter to that. Mr. Whiston had certainly failed legally; but that was no reason why, upon a representation of the case before the House of Commons, some remedy should not be applied to the difficulty. In asking for a commission, his hon. Friend (Mr. Mowatt) had done no more than the circumstances of the case fairly warranted him in doing; and if he went to a division, he (Mr. Milnes) should certainly vote with him. Mr. Whiston's case appeared to him to he one of very peculiar hardship. He, in fact, created the school at Rochester. It had been allowed to fall into decay and disuse. The cathedral body represented that it was beaten out of the field by good proprietary schools in the neighbourhood; but it was their business to see that it did not fall into that position. It was in a generous spirit that Mr. Whiston took up the case, and he had been hardly dealt with by them for it. If the present debate was followed by no other consequences, he trusted that, at any rate, it would reach the ears of that important body the Dean and Chapter of Rochester that it was the opinion of this House that Mr. Whiston's case was deserving of at least very generous consideration; and he did hope they would see that it would be becoming in a great body like them to act above all suspicion

591
of petty motives, personal feelings, personal pique, or personal profit. He trusted that they would see that they could not do greater justice to themselves than by putting the most lenient, even though it might not be a strictly just, interpretation upon the past, and by retaining Mr. Whiston in the situation to which he had done so much honour, really confer honour upon themselves.
MR ROUNDELL PALMERconsidered it was much to be lamented that when hon. Members desired to bring forward Motions involving general propositions for the advantage of the Church and of the country, they should take these as opportunities for attacks upon individuals, named or not named, most unjust in principle, probably most unjust in their application to the individuals, and which those individuals were not present to answer. The offence imputed to the Dean and Chapter of Rochester had been this—that there being certain statutes which provided for various excellent purposes that had fallen into decay, as well as for the maintenance of deans and canons, the deans and canons allowed some of those purposes to fall into decay, while others beneficial to them had been kept up. This practice had been enduring for centuries, and now it was made the subject of imputation against certain individuals who at a given moment are found administering the trust. The law of the country sanctioned usages of that kind; in numerous cases, similar to this, it was held that where certain deeds give certain money charges to a certain amount, and the rest of the property to individual use, the legal right to keep the whole surplus without increasing the fixed payments was one vested in the persons to whom the property is entrusted. How, then, could it be expected that the members of a corporate body should open their eyes to the duty of turning reformers, the law saying they were not bound to do so—the law sanctioning the present administration of the trust. It must be remembered that the question did not affect schools only; there were exhibitions to the Universities and so forth. If the chapters were now to be called upon to appropriate their funds to the revival of decayed but useful branches of the original foundations, according to the statutes and the intentions of the founders, the whole of the funds would be absorbed which were reckoned upon as available for the augmentation of poor livings. There were many
592
other original objects besides schools and scholars; and he was disposed to think, that by a much closer adherence to the intentions of the founder than was provided for in the statute, at least an equal amount of spiritual good might be effected. Nothing could be more proper than to guard against any undue divergence of Church property into particular hands, so that the funds of the Church would be made the means of accumulating large fortunes; but at the same time there should be an abstinence from attacks on individuals because they did not originate reform or restoration. The hon. Member (Mr. Mowatt) might have done considerable service by introducing the subject, if personal matter had not been so largely mixed up with it, and if the general policy had formed the staple of the argument; but the subject was a very large one. He (Mr. Palmer) would say, with regard to it, that he thought the course the Legislature had taken in the direction of Church reform had been too much in the nature of a divergence from the original destination of Church property. The cathedral bodies derived large incomes from tithes of parishes, and it might have been thought an obvious thing to restore the tithes to the parishes that paid them, at least so far as to provide for the spiritual wants of those parishes. But that was a principle not recognised upon the face of the Cathedral Act, though perhaps more acted upon than it had been. [An Hon. MEMBER: It is recognised.] Well, if recognised, it was not made incumbent. It was a very serious question, how far the power of these bodies had been diminished by recent legislation as to schools of this kind; and it seemed unjust to introduce such a subject to the consideration of the House in language which implied that wrong had been done by individuals, and that they had acted unconscientiously, when they had merely abstained from taking upon themselves an extensive system of reform in the shape of a revival or restoration of institutions which had remained in their present state from a period dating from long before these parties came into possession. It was much to be regretted that Mr. Whiston did not bear those views in mind, and consider what was due to individuals from those who desired to reform abuses. He might have done great public good without suffering any injury himself if he had addressed himself to the law affecting the subject, or the expediency and policy of a

593
reform of the system of cathedral schools. It was to be regretted that he should have proceeded in the spirit of attack upon individuals who were, after all, his superiors, to whom he was subordinate, and who, if they had the feelings of men, could not but expect from him some degree of consideration for the position which they occupied.
MR. HUMEsaid, the hon. and learned Member who last addressed the House had talked of the unfairness of making charges in that House against absent individuals. He (Mr. Hume) would ask that hon. and learned Member if he meant that they were to wait until the bishops came into that House to defend themselves? If he did not mean that, what did he mean? He (Mr. Hume) admitted that for centuries abuses had existed in the Church. There was, therefore, the greater reason that those abuses should be reformed. He was one of those who thought that the clergy were always opposed to all Church reform; and though there were many estimable men among them anxious to promote the real interests of the Church, yet, as a body, there was no class of men more disposed to hold fast what they had got. He contended that Mr. Whiston had been most unjustly treated, and in consequence of that treatment the dean and chapter had exposed themselves to public notice. He hoped the noble Lord at the head of the Government would consent to the appointment of a Commission—a Commission composed of laymen, for he wished to see no more Clerical Commissioners—for the purpose of inquiring into the abuses connected with these trusts, and not only of inquiring into them, but of correcting them. That was the way to bring the Church into good character with the country, and he did think the noble Lord at the head of the Government would be disposed to listen to the suggestions which had been made in the course of the discussion. Where, as in this instance, education was the object in view, and where it was manifest that funds had been misapplied, surely the noble Lord, as a friend of the Church, would agree to the inquiry which was sought.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he must preface the few words he had to say, by calling the attention of the House to the fact that this was an Amendment in order to prevent the House going into Committee of Supply. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mowatt) who had moved the Amendment
594
objected to the House going into Committee, and said, let them rather consider the question of Education in connection with the cathedrals of this country, and more especially with that of Rochester. He (Lord John Russell) was disinclined to enter into that particular case; but, supposing the Government were disposed to entertain this question, there was a question which had been put by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Roundell Palmer), and which it would behove the House seriously to consider as a separate question, and seriously to deliberate upon it, before they decided on the course which had been suggested by some hon. Members, and especially by the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means (Mr. Bernal). There was an inquiry begun by the Commission appointed during the short Administration of the late Sir Robert Peel in 1834–5. That Commission was continued with some alteration of the Members, and they made several reports. He (Lord John Russell) had the honour to bring in a Bill founded on one of those reports, and he had succeeded in carrying that measure. What those Commissioners specially pointed out as the great evil which it was their bounden duty to inquire into, and which it was the bounden duty of Parliament to attend to, was the spiritual destitution in different parts of the country; in parishes originally having a population perhaps of 15,000, which in the lapse of time had increased to 40,000, 50,000, or 60,000, and even more in some cases; and they gave the population of Middlesex, Yorkshire, and Lancashire, and showed what was the number of churches as contrasted with the population of each parish. They said that was the main evil to be remedied; that, whatever other evils or defects there might be, that was the primary evil, and until that had been remedied, the Legislature ought not to attempt to carry into effect other changes or reforms. All the measures of the Commission were directed to that purpose. The principal object they had in view was to obtain funds for the purpose of remedying the spiritual destitution which existed, by erecting new churches in populous districts, and by appointing clergymen to minister in those churches and districts. For that purpose, and with that view, the number of canons in cathedrals was diminished, certain sinecure rectories were abolished, and various other changes were made. That, at all events, was a clear

595
and definite view. Of course there would be much difference of opinion as to the mode of carrying it into effect, but it was a definite view of what should be done with regard to Church reform. Some hon. Members had other views on that subject; they said, Rather let the House restore those cathedral establishments; do not cut down and reduce them so as to make them unsuitable to their original purpose; but look at that original purpose, and restore to its former vigour that which has been lost sight of by means of defects, abuses, or malversations. But when that proposal came before the House, although it gave rise to much discussion, and several powerful speeches were made in support of it, there was, on a division, few Members who voted in its favour. With regard to one question to which the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. Roundell Palmer) had alluded, there was certainly a general recommendation on the part of the Commissioners with respect to the sources and places from which the funds had been derived; and he (Lord John Russell) remembered that was a question which occasioned a good deal of discussion in the Commission. The late Archbishop of Canterbury and the Earl of Harrowby, both exceedingly competent to give their opinion, and desirous to promote reform in the Church, had occasion to state their views as members of the Ecclesiastical Commission. The result of that discussion was, a resolution that the funds should, as far as possible, be applied to remedy spiritual destitution, but with a view to the benefit of parishes from which the funds were derived. As he had understood the business of the Commission—for, not having acted as a member of it for a long time, he did not speak from present experience—the question they had to determine was whether, and how far, they were to take into consideration the wants of parishes from which tithe would be derived to be applied to the purposes of the fund under the control of the Commissioners. But, with respect to the other object involved in proposals made for the restoration of cathedral establishments, bestowing large sums to support schools attached to them, and applying the funds derived from cathedral property to give more efficiency to the establishment of cathedrals, which should have a large body of canons attending to the wants of cathedral cities, that was neither recommended by the Commission
596
nor adopted by Parliament. When the House came to the discussion of that question, it would be for Parliament to consider whether they were to reverse what had been agreed upon with a full view of the consequences. If they believed the Church revenues might be and were absolutely required for the division of large into small parishes, for the erection of new churches, and for the payment of the stipends of the clergymen, these revenues would continue to be dealt with as they were dealt with at present. If, on the other hand, it were thought better to restore the cathedrals, and recur to the policy which was followed in founding them—if it were thought that they might be reformed, and a plan were laid down for effecting that object, then that plan would have to be pursued. But if the latter course were taken, they must not expect to realise the former. They must renounce that object which Parliament and the Commission had steadily had before them. He did not think it requisite to enter into the question whether or not the Dean and Chapter of Rochester behaved properly in this matter, or whether they were bound by ancient and existing customs. That was a question into which he did not think fit to enter, because it was really not in a state on which the House of Commons could pronounce any opinion: It was now a question which would be heard, and heard not only by the bishop, but by Mr. Baron Parke; and when the opinion of the bishop and of that learned Judge had been pronounced, it would be time enough for the House of Commons to come to a decision upon it.
MR. HEYWOODthought, that considering the change of views and circumstances which had occurred since the cathedrals were founded, he did not see how those establishments could be placed in the same position in the nineteenth century which they occupied before the Reformation. They were founded in times when people desired to have masses said for their souls; but there was no reasonable probability that the people of England would again become Roman Catholic. The tendency, indeed, was rather the other way. He thought it would be of great advantage if a Commission were appointed to consider how schools which had endowments connected with cathedrals could be rendered efficient. If they were so, subscriptions now required would be superseded, and the schools would be found to

597
form a nucleus for an improved system of education. He felt that the hon. Member for Penryn (Mr. Mowatt) had placed the House under an obligation by calling its attention to this subject.
MR. MOWATT, in reply, said, it had been supposed by the hon. and learned Solicitor General, that he had characterised the deans and chapters as "robbers." He had spoken indeed of the plunder they had committed—an expression which he acknowledged was almost as strong. Respecting the position of the deans and chapters subsequent to the passing of the Act, he wished to know what were the views of the hon. and learned Solicitor General.
The SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, after the passing of this Act, the position of the deans and chapters, with reference to their property, was this—it became a matter of account. They had to account to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for the surplus fund as soon as they came under the operation of the Act, and some of them had not yet come under it. [Mr. MOWATT: Rochester has not.] Looking to the number of years which have elapsed since the Act was passed, and remembering the age at which these persons generally arrived when they were appointed to the offices, they would soon all come under the Act. They would be allowed to charge the sums legally paid for the schools; but, if there was no school existing at the time of the passing of the Act, he should think the Ecclesiastical Commissioners would act very wrongly if they allowed the charges for these schools.
MR. MOWATTsaid, he did not intend to divide the House on his Amendment.
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
Main Question put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY—MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES.
House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Bernal in the chair.
(1.) 46,824 l. British Museum.
MR. HUMEsaid, that that was a large sum, but he had no objection to make to it, as it was to be applied to a most valuable national object. He wished to see the whole of that magnificent collection, and more especially the library, more extensively thrown open to the public. The Commissioners who had inquired into the state of the Museum had recommended a
598
change in the system of its management, and that instead of a Committee of thirty individuals, it should be managed by a small Executive Committee, whose members should be paid, and should be individually responsible for the trust committed to their care. He entirely approved of that recommendation, and he hoped it would speedily be carried into effect.
SIR ROBERT H. INGLISsaid, he believed there was no one institution in which the people of this country took so much interest as in the British Museum, and that there was none which offered such striking marks of increasing popularity. Forty years ago the number of readers amounted to 1,950 only, and last year the number of readers had increased to 72,000. In the year 1835 the number of books in the library was only 235,000, while they were at present, he believed, twice that number, or 470,000. Not less than 1,070,000 persons had entered the Museum as visitors in the course of last year, while the number of visitors five years ago had only been 680,000, and had only been 70,000 in the year 1810. And he could further state, that while the number of visitors had so greatly increased, their conduct had been beyond all praise. He believed the library of the Museum was at present open during a greater number of hours, and was accessible to a greater number of persons, than any similar establishment in the world. He trusted that during the recess the noble Lord at the head of the Government would take into his consideration the increasing wants of the establishment, and would give his attention to the necessity of adding to the buildings.
MR. W. J. FOXwould suggest that the reading room should be opened in the evening. There were hundreds and thousands of young men in the metropolis who desired this so earnestly, that if the expense were the only obstacle to the granting of their desire, they would most cheerfully contribute towards defraying the cost. They were persons whose occupations prevented them from attending during the day time; but they were a class really addicted to study, and would not treat it as a mere lounge. Such an alteration in the arrangements of the library was calculated to turn the great literary riches at their disposal to the best account. The only objection he had heard was the risk of fire attendant on the use of the necessary apparatus for lighting; but he

599
thought that very sufficient precautions might be taken against the possibility of accident. They might, for instance, take rooms near the Museum, and, to reduce the danger to its lowest amount, they might only allow the duplicate books to be used. These amounted to 70,000 or 80,000 volumes; but, supposing that there were only 50,000, they would of themselves constitute a very valuable library. This arrangement would be, comparatively speaking, so inexpensive, and the boon would be so great, that he trusted the proposition would receive a favourable consideration. As to the vote itself, he very much regretted that it was not for a much larger amount, inasmuch as greater accommodation had become absolutely necessary. He thought that a few thousands might very reasonably have been added, to enable Mr. Layard to prosecute his interesting and very valuable researches.
MR. EWARTgreatly approved of the suggestion of the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Fox), but thought that there should be several libraries formed in London. The proposal of the hon. Gentleman would make, however, an excellent beginning. There had been large public libraries founded in Paris, Rouen, Amiens, and, as they sometimes found a ray of light proceed from a very unexpected quarter, even the Pope sanctioned a public library at Rome.
SIR ROBERT H. INGLISsaid, the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Fox) had stated the principal objection to opening the reading room at night, namely, the danger of fire. But that was by no means the only reason why they should not adopt the proposal. In the first place, there was the expense which would be caused by the larger staff that would be required, and it might be doubted whether the result would repay them for the additional outlay; for the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume), who had proposed the extension of the hours at which the Museum might be seen, had admitted that it had not been productive of such benefit as he had expected. He (Sir R. Inglis) should be glad, however, to see two or three large public libraries of a humbler but more practical character established in the metropolis. Still he must object to the removal of the duplicates into a separate library. Some of them were often in use at the same time, and in others they could not be removed without the violation of trusts and bequests. It would, for in-
600
stance, be a breach of the public faith to remove a book from the library of George III., because a copy of it happened to be in Mr. Bentham's collection.
MR. STANFORDwillingly bore testimony to the civility of the attendants at the British Museum. He had read at most of the European libraries, and was disposed to agree with the proposal of the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Fox). He thought the means for readers in this country were far less than in any other. He did not think that there were more than 1,000 regular readers at the British Museum. He must express a decided opinion that further opportunities of reading and of literary improvement ought to be offered by the Government. He hoped the hon. Baronet (Sir R. Inglis) would use his influence with the Government, in placing at the disposal of the public, at other hours than the present ones, the magnificent stores of the British Museum.
MR. MONCKTON MILNESsaid, the ventilation of the British Museum was such as to render it almost impossible for many gentlemen to attend there—he trusted some improvement would be made. The catalogue had certainly been improved; but the ventilation, he repeated, was exceedingly bad. He wished to ask the noble Lord at the head of the Government a question upon a very grave subject. A Commission had been appointed—that Commission had sat for a considerable time, and had made a Report; but no proceedings had been taken upon that Report. He now wished to called the attention of the Government to that circumstance. He wanted to know if the Government intended to bring in any measure founded on that Report?
MR. SLANEYwished to press upon the noble Lord at the head of the Government the opinion of his hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford, namely, that a reading room should be procured elsewhere for the middle classes, where they could study in the evening. An arrangement had been made for the early closing of shops and warehouses; but the young men, who thus had leisure, could not yet avail themselves of their spare hours in literary instruction.
MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEYsaid, he begged to make a statement, notice of which he had given to the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford (Sir R. Inglis). He wanted to know why it was that the Home Office, or any

601
other department of the Government not immediately connected with the administration of the Museum library, should interfere with it in any way? They had interfered in the map department. He held in his hand a letter from a gentleman who wished to consult a map of the river Med-way in the King's Library, that had been made about the year 1724. The writer complained that some maps to which he desired to refer were sealed up; and the functionary at the Museum, upon inquiry, told him that they were so sealed by order of the Government. Having inquired a little more, he was led to believe that the reason of this sealing was the dread of French invasion, and so as to keep from our Gallic neighbours the knowledge of the topography of these districts, and the nature of our fortifications. This absurd fear had long since passed away, and it seemed foolish that those valuable maps, useful for other purposes, should still remain sealed. As far as the fear of French invasion was concerned, there were some mapsellers in London who could give all the information which a Frenchman could require. He believed the maps were sealed on account of certain fortifications on the river Medway, most of which had long since disappeared, though the bag that contained the map remained sealed. The gentleman who had written to him was no Frenchman, but a most loyal subject of Her Majesty.
SIR ROBERT H. INGLISbegged to assure the hon. Gentleman that that was not the case. An action had been brought affecting the rights of the Crown; and, at the suggestion of the Master General of the Ordnance, the maps had been sealed up in order to prevent those rights from being assailed.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, in reply to the question of the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. M. Milnes), that several of the recommendations of the Commission had been complied with, but it was not thought advisable to adopt the whole Report at once. Nevertheless, it was a most valuable document, and it would be resorted to from time to time, as occasion seemed to render proper. With respect to the suggestion about the establishment of new libraries, he had himself, when George IV. presented the Royal library, recommended that it should not be added to the Museum, but that it should form a separate institution. It was quite true that, compared with towns on the Conti-
602
nents, we should not make a very good figure as regarded public libraries, but the subject should have his best attention.
MR. HUMEsaid, that if there was to be no change in the governing power, he should no longer agree to the Vote. He considered it necessary to have a small executive body instead of a numerous Commission. A Committee was appointed, twelve years ago, to take the management, but it had never met, and one Member took it one day, and another another. The Master of the Rolls, Mr. Speaker, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, were members of the Commission, and they had surely too many engagements to attend to the business properly. What was wanted, was unity of management, instead of which it was left to individual members, and thus the funds were insensibly drawn from their legitimate objects, in order to gratify the peculiar tastes of each.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he felt bound to defend the Commissioners from the charge that no reliance was to be placed upon their attendance. The Commissioners comprised amongst the rest such men as Mr. Hallam, Mr. Macaulay, Sir David Dundas, and Lord Mahon, and in them the public might have the most entire confidence.
MR. HUMEdisclaimed the intention of casting any reflections upon the Committee; he had only argued that their other occupations rendered it impossible to pay proper attention to the Museum. Lord Seymour, for instance, was a member of eighteen boards. What was wanted was a few persons who should be there from Monday morning to Saturday night.
MR. HENLEYhoped that the trustees would take measures to have such information placed before them as would enable them to judge of the number of individuals that availed themselves of the advantages afforded them in the library of the institution. The noble Lord (Lord John Russell) said he thought it desirable that several public libraries should be established throughout the country, but he had not applied himself to the immediate question at issue, having been led away from it by the observations which had fallen from the hon. Gentleman behind him. If the fact were, as the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Stanford) had stated it, he thought it very extraordinary that only 1,000 persons should have availed themselves of the benefits of this library.
SIR ROBERT H. INGLISsaid, that

603
such a statement was incorrect. The number of persons that used the library was nearer to 40,000, and the number of visitors exceeded 78,000 within the last year. The least number of volumes furnished in one day was 100, and one-third of the whole number of the books had been consulted or referred to.
MR. STANFORDsaid, he was in the habit of using the library, and never found more there than 300 persons on an average, who were generally the same that he usually met there. He therefore felt himself justified in saying that he thought there were not more than 1,000 persons who availed themselves of the advantage of the reading room. He believed that the 70,000 visitors alluded to by the hon. Baronet were made up of the same persons that attended there day after day.
Vote agreed to; as was also—
(2.) 31,221 l., New Buildings, British Museum.
(3.) 3,500 l., British Museum Antiquities.
(4.) 150,000 l., Public Education, Great Britain.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, that in the absence, through indisposition, of his right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Home Department, he wished to make a statement, in explanation of this Vote. The House was aware that this Vote for Education commenced in 1833, when its amount did not exceed 20,000 l. In 1838, a great change was made with reference to the mode of distributing the sum thus voted by Parliament, it being arranged that a Committee of the Privy Council should be appointed to make that distribution, from time to time, to make minutes with respect to the mode in which the distribution was effected, and to take into their care various other questions connected with education. Large sums of money had been voted by Parliament for this purpose. Previous to the change in question, these sums amounted in the whole to 120,000 l., distributed by the Treasury; and, since that period, up to 1851, the sums granted amounted to 870,000 l., of which the Committee of Education had expended 641,540 l. up to the end of that year, and a further amount since. At this moment the balance in the hands of the Committee of Education was 99,586 l., and the estimate for the present year being 186,381 l., and the sum proposed to be taken being 150,000 l., this would leave in the hands of the Committee a balance
604
of 63,205 l., and it was deemed advisable, to leave in their hands a considerable balance in order to fulfil engagements which they had made, and payment of which might at any time be required. It was to be borne in mind that these sums contributed by Parliament, implied much larger sums contributed by the public out of doors. Of late years, a new principle had been established, which went much beyond the original scheme of simply contributing to the building of schools, a plan based upon the theory that the way in which the public funds could be made most practically available for education would be not so much the increasing the quantity as the improving the quality of education in this country; and, for this purpose, there bad been introduced a system of giving stipends to pupil-teachers, of augmenting the salaries of masters and mistresses, of awarding grants and exhibitions, of furnishing maps and books at a low price, and so on. At present there were 6,700 persons receiving annual payments, in one or other of the capacities he had mentioned, from the Parliamentary Votes. The plan, so far as it had been hitherto tried, had been eminently successful and highly beneficial, more especially in relation to the future teachers. He would beg to read to the House some extracts from the reports of the inspectors on the point. The Rev. H. Moseley, referring to the elementary schools inspected by him in Wiltshire and Berkshire during the months of October, November, and December, 1850, stated as follows:—
"The number of children who had left them during the twelve months preceding my examination was 1,488, and the number who had been admitted to them 1,853, so that the aggregate number of children attending them had increased by 365, being at the rate of 24 per cent. I attribute this increase to the greater popularity of the schools, growing out of the increased facilities they afford for the education of the children, and chiefly from the labours of the pupil-teachers. In the schools where pupil-teachers are employed, the monitorial system has generally been given up. Many of these pupil-teachers are entitled now to rank as assistant-masters and mistresses, and most effectual assistance is rendered by them in the teaching of the children, particularly of the lower classes, heretofore much neglected. A largo proportion of them manifest an interest in the work of the teacher, and may be considered to be well adapted to it. They have been selected as the promising children of their respective schools, are generally of fair abilities, and have made good progress in their learning, according to the course prescribed in your Lordship's schedule. Having made special inquiries from the clergy, and other friends and supporters of the schools, as to their

605
conduct, I have great satisfaction in reporting the favourable accounts that I have received. I believe that there is no other class of persons of that age whose conduct, subjected to the like careful observation and scrutiny, would be found more entirely free from blame. The schools in which pupil-teachers have been appointed are generally schools fortunate in the supervision of active and zealous clergymen; and I cannot convey in adequate terms the sense I entertain of the importance of this fact. I believe that the success which has, up to this period, characterised the working of the pupil-teacher system is mainly to be attributed to it."
The Rev. F. C. Cook, in the metropolitan district, said—
"I have little to add to the full report which I made upon this most important subject last year. The hopes which I then expressed are much confirmed by what I have since observed."
The Rev. F. Watkins, Her Majesty's inspector in the counties of York, Durham, and Northumberland, said—
"I am able to report very favourably of the progress of the system of pupil-teachers. There are very few of the whole number of schools in which pupil-teachers are apprenticed, which do not bear evidence to the fitness and usefulness of the system, by improvement, both in discipline and progress, correspondent to the time during which it has been at work."
The Rev. J. P. Norris, Her Majesty's inspector of schools in Cheshire, Shropshire, and Staffordshire, makes the following observations on the working of the pupil-teacher system:—
"Perhaps it might not appear at once to a casual observer that the standard of instruction in pupil-teacher schools was much higher than in non-pupil teacher schools, but, on a closer inspection of the tables, it will be seen to be the case, and that in the most satisfactory way possible. It is not in history, geography, grammar, or the higher rules of arithmetic—that is, in the first-class subjects—that the great disparity is shown; but in the lower subjects which still engage the bottom of the school—in the percentage of children still occupied with their alphabet and spelling, or who have not yet begun to write on paper or cast accounts—that the pupil-teacher schools appear so far in advance of non-pupil teacher schools. Thus, in pupil-teacher schools only 17 per cent are left in the alphabet class; in non-pupil teacher schools 48 per cent, or nearly half; in pupil-teacher schools only 5 per cent are writing copies on slates; in non-pupil teacher schools 46 per cent, or nearly half, are still so occupied; in pupil-teacher schools only 3½ per cent appear not to have begun arithmetic; in non-pupil teacher schools 52 per cent, or one quarter."
When it was considered for how brief a time the labouring classes were able to send their children to school, it was important to find that the results obtained in that time were so much greater than at former periods. The reports he had quoted were those of inspectors of the National
606
Society's Schools. He would now cite the report of inspectors belonging to other schools. Mr. J. D. Morell, the inspector of British and Protestant Dissenting Schools in the north and east of England, said—
"The system of pupil-teachers still remains one of the most interesting and important features in your Lordships' Minutes, and none, I believe, has had a greater effect in raising the general tone of primary education through the country. So long as examples of a thoroughly efficient primary school were wanting, there was no wonder at the little zeal exhibited in the progress of education, and in the improvement of the schools already existing. A single effective school, held up as a model to a district, is a realised idea, which places the entire problem of education to the minds of observers in a new light. To bring the mass of our population under such influences is seen at once to be an object worth all the effort and the sacrifice that can be directed towards it. This appears to me to be one of the first and foremost of the advantages which have been secured by the apprenticeship of pupil-teachers. Many other advantages are of course in reserve, but the mere fact of having by this instrumentality planted practically efficient schools here and there throughout the country—schools in which we are not wholly shut up to the formal mechanism of the monitorial system on the one hand, nor to the incessant waste of time consumed in drill, march, bad music, and dull routine on the other—this very fact, I say, renders the return to such methods and organisations a moral impossibility. The people themselves begin now to know what education is, and are not very likely to be again satisfied with an apology for it. With regard to the pupil-teachers themselves there is of course a great variety in their efficiency and progress, as there is in the circumstances under which they are placed. As a whole, however, they have considerably exceeded my expectations."
Mr. T. W. M. Marshall, Her Majesty's inspector of Roman Catholic schools, said—
"I ought not, perhaps, in speaking of matters affecting the welfare of Roman Catholic schools, to omit all allusion to the introduction into them, for the first time, of apprenticed pupil-teachers. The school managers who have availed themselves of their services, and watched the effect of their employment, appear to be unanimous in their sense of the value of this class of assistant teachers; and the improvement visible in the schools where they are found, is, with few exceptions, sufficiently marked and decisive to leave no room for doubt on this subject."
There was a similar report from Dr. Woodford, one of the inspectors for Scotland. It was to be observed that the encouragement of these pupil-teachers, and the rewards given for efficient teaching, had not only an immediate effect upon the young men themselves, but interested all their relations and friends in the great work of education, so that quite a novel and most effective impetus was communicated to the

607
labouring classes in the right direction by the opportunities afforded by this plan to the development of superior intellect and application among their relatives. The augmentation of the salaries of the masters and mistresses, and the annual exhibitions and grants, had also been found exceedingly useful. The great point to be aimed at was not so much the number of children going vaguely to school, as the securing a sound quality of education for those who did go there. One defect there was which it would be very difficult, he feared, to remedy, that namely of children being removed from school at a very early age. It appeared that no less than 35 per cent were taken away from school under seven years of age, 62 per cent under ten, while less than 8 per cent were above twelve. It was manifest there was great danger that children taken away so early from instruction would soon forget what they had learned, and the seeds of education be lost for ever, Yet, what remedy could be suggested? To poor people earning their few shillings a week, the temptation of the 1s. 6d. or 2s. which a child, if put to some employment away from school might earn, was very great. Perhaps some plan might be devised of schools at which children of about twelve and upwards might attend for short periods each day, so that what had been learned might be retained, and by the means of small lending libraries of books, a taste for reading be encouraged. One considerable item in the expenditure had been occasioned by the training school for workhouse teachers at Knellerhall; but there was every reason to believe that this institution would be attended with beneficial effects. Parliament and the public could not do too much in the way of raising the condition and honouring the position of the schoolmasters. There was no class of men whose employment was more useful to the community, and it was deeply painful to reflect what small salaries many of these persons received for the constant application of much ability, much learning, and much science, to the laborious work of education, so beneficial to all, yet so little appreciated. Now, he did not wish to enter upon any of the exclusive questions with regard to that education. He would only state that he believed the education given in the training schools in Dublin was of a very superior character, and he had been struck with the general attainments and correctness of memory of
608
those who had been educated there. He believed, likewise, that the small sums which were given to agricultural schools were of very great use, and it would be observed that it was proposed to increase that Vote to 14,000 l. more than the Vote of 1849. On the Vote for Schools of Design, his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade would give any explanation that might be required. He would only say that there was a head school in London; but what he thought even of more importance was that there were several branches connected with that head school, which contained no less than 3,000 pupils. There had been considerable progress made by the pupils in these schools, and great anxiety had been evinced to obtain instruction in them. It was desirable that the drawings which were made at the head school of design should be distributed through the schools in the country, which he believed would be a great means of improving its taste, and of giving a correctness to it which was very desirable. Then there was a sum nearly the same as before for the University of London, and a sum of 15,000 l, for the Museum of Practical Geology. This building had only been recently opened, but he did not doubt but great practical benefit would be derived from it. Any one who had visited it must have been pleased with its contents. It was calculated to be highly useful to this country; and when he considered how great were the mineral products of this kingdom, and the results of our mining operations—the value of the mineral produce of Great Britain and Ireland in the raw state being about 25,000,000 l. annually—he thought that any information and instruction to be obtained from a museum of that description would prove exceedingly beneficial. There was another Vote connected with subjects of the same kind which was not included in the present estimate. It was for the means of publishing the modes of interpreting cuneiform inscriptions. The gentlemen engaged in this work were unable to go on with their publications and to complete them without the aid of Parliament; and he had therefore assured them that any moderate sum which might be necessary for so very important an object, he had no doubt the House of Commons would vote. The whole amount proposed to be voted this year was 435,920 l., which, with the additional sums for the purposes he had just referred to, might probably be enhanced to

609
450,000 l, He believed that there was no class of Votes which came before Parliament which were more useful to the public than these, and he knew that the Committee would be disposed to deal liberally with them. The Committee would find that the expenditure for Public Education in Great Britain had very much increased within the last twenty years. In 1833 it was only 20,000 l. Now, it had got up to 150,000 l., and the whole of these estimates had increased very greatly since that period. While it was necessary that they should vote sums of money for the Army and the Navy, yet it was far more gratifying to vote sums of this kind for the purpose of promoting those sciences and fostering those arts which tended to maintain internal and external peace.
MR. W. J. FOXsaid, it seemed to him, on looking over the items of the Vote, that some further alteration must be made in the mode in which the grant was distributed. He found it was intended to expend 55,000 l. this year in school buildings. He thought the time was come when the Committee should check their hands, and be less lavish with this branch of expenditure. School building had gone on much more rapidly than school teaching, and there was more than twice the room required for the number of scholars who attended—a result of the system of rivalry amongst the different sects. In 1849 there were 581 schools, in which stipends were allotted to teachers, and they were capable of accommodating 183,000 pupils, but only 76,000 attended. In the ten years from 1840 to 1850, there had been 2,606 schools assisted with building ground, at a cost of 454,410 l. The capacity of these schools was sufficient to the accommodation of 549,493, whilst the average attendance was 196,000 children. That great overbuilding showed that, at least in that department, the liberality of the Committee should be checked, and means taken to fill the schools. There was, he thought, too much exclusiveness in the distribution of the grant, and more good would be done if they threw down some of the barriers which confined the liberality of the Committee of Privy Council. There were several classes of schools which were excluded from all participation in the funds of the State. First, there was growing up in London, as well as in the northern counties, a class of schools called secular schools, the children of which, although
610
only receiving secular instruction in the schools, were quite as religiously taught as those belonging to any other schools by their proper religious teachers at Sunday schools and otherwise. The success of these schools was very remarkable, and they were so popular amongst the operatives that they were self-supporting. The Rev. Mr. Mosely, the Government inspector, reported that these secular schools were superior to many of the schools which received part of the educational grant. Why should that class of schools, then, not participate in the funds of the State, in order to raise yet higher the standard of education which they exhibit, according to the very principle laid down by the noble Lord at the head of the Government that it was necessary to improve the quality rather than to increase the quantity of instruction given? Then, again, there was that other class of schools standing at the other extreme, which were found outside the line prescribed by the Committee on account of the controversy about trust-deeds, or because they were of too exclusively religious a character. He saw no reason why they should be shut out because the founder might lay down stringent rules as to clerical or episcopal authority in the management of the schools, or as to the creed or catechism to be taught in them. Let the founder be as exclusive as he pleased as to the religion of the school: so long as he trained up good citizens and useful and intelligent members of the community, his school, according to the measure in which it rendered service to the cause of education, ought to receive the favour and patronage of the dispensers of the grant. Another class of schools which did not receive any aid from the grant, was the ragged schools, where the element of religious discord did not stand in the way, and with regard to the children connected with which the State stood, in loco parentis. What these children wanted was moral and religious training—their wits were often found to be already well-sharpened, and as to intellect, they were often superior to the children of the labourer. Aiming, as the Ragged Schools did, at mitigating some of the worst and most loathsome evils of society, he thought they might be very fairly brought within the purview of the regulations of the Committee of Privy Council. Another class of schools excluded from the grants were schools connected with mechanics' institutes—school which, he believed, would

611
have a great effect upon the educational statistics of Lancashire, and others of the manufacturing counties. And, lastly, there were the schools belonging to the Jews of Whitechapel and other places, the managers of which actually applied for assistance from the grants, but were refused. These five classes of schools which he had named had all some kind and degree of merit, and ought to receive some share in the education funds voted by the State. The noble Lord (Lord John Russell) said, there were already upwards of 6,000 pupil-teachers receiving stated sums annually, and there was also a large outlay on training institutions. He therefore put it to the noble Lord, whether there was not some danger of overstocking the mart of schoolmasters—of educating more young men in these normal institutions, where a large and liberal training was given, than were called for by the number of schools already existing, or likely to exist, under the present system? If, however, he might regard this as only a provisional arrangement, and as preparatory to some large plan of national instruction which was in prospective, he should rejoice at being enabled to view it as the harbinger of so desirable a consummation.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, with regard to the last observation of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, that he certainly, for himself, did look forward with hope to the ultimate establishment of a more extended system of National Education. To promote such a result, the Government had been endeavouring to do as much as lay in their power.
MR. EWARTsaid, that one most unfortunate circumstance connected with the education of the children of the poorer classes, was the early period at which they were withdrawn from school; and it would be well to consider how far they might supply the want of education to those, classes by the establishment of evening schools. As the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) had properly alluded to workhouse teachers, he would observe that a most important feature in workhouse schools was the separation of the children from the contamination of the workhouse. He should be glad to find, in some future year, the noble Lord able to expand the system of education; and he expressed his gratification that the Educational Estimates had now assumed their proper position, and would be, he hoped, introduced to the Committee in an annual statement.
MR. W. MILEShad not had the good fortune to hear the speech of the noble Lord at the head of the Government; but, in consequence of the observations since addressed to the Committee, he felt it necessary to say that the question really was, how far preliminary education should go, and how it should be conducted—whether or not on Christian principles? The Government education system, as at present carried on, prevented no persons from taking advantage of it provided they were Christians. The Bible must be the foundation of that education, and yet he had heard from the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Fox) that he preferred to give merely mundane erudition. Now, he (Mr. Miles) beseeched the House to insist that Christianity should be the basis of education which the Government might give. He lamented, as much as any man, that the children of the working classes could not be brought to attend school above the age of twelve years. The poverty of the parents, which rendered the earnings of these poor children of, perhaps, 3s. or 4s. a week, necessary to the support of the family, could only be deplored.
MR. HUMEwas sorry that the hon. Member had interfered with the very harmonious discussion that had been going on. If the hon. Gentleman had considered more, he would have addressed himself to the subject with more calmness and coolness. What would he do in Hindostan with his notions of education? ["Oh!"] Yes; he could tell hon. Members that education was carried on there without the addition which the hon. Gentleman required as the exclusive basis of any system of education. He (Mr. Hume) approved of the increase of expenditure in this Vote, provided it was properly applied, and he thought that during the last few months great improvements had taken place in the application of the money. Nothing had pleased him more than the emulation which the system had produced. He had seen schools in which a miraculous change, he might almost say, had taken place. Great effect had been produced upon the parents. He had known a school of a village in which none of the parents of the children going to the school could read or write. But emulation had greatly extended, and was even reaching into poor villages where there were no wealthy residents to advance money for education. A large number of villages in this country were without the means of procuring those schools to which

613
these grants were made; but unless there was a school in every village, the population could not be brought up creditably. In some places there were more schools than were necessary; but he hoped that eventually all classes would unite in that harmony which he remembered used to exist. The Government must determine that no individual should be employed in the public service unless he could read and write. If that were made a rule, he believed it would excite a desire in the people to see their children educated, and it ought to be a rule in every department, from the labourers in the dockyards. He hoped the noble Lord at the head of the Government would be able to unite all parties in an attempt to provide every man with instruction that would be useful to him. Education was everywhere wanted. Juries, for example, were wanted even in the villages, and he had seen in them with much sorrow instances of ten out of twelve jurymen not being able to read or write.
SIR JOHN TYRELLbegged to ask the noble Lord to explain upon what principle it was that so small a sum as 150,000 l. was granted for the purposes of education in Great Britain, the population of which was 20,000,000, and so large a sum as 134,560 l. was granted for education in Ireland, where the population was only 6,500,000; and when it was known that not above half of that population availed themselves of the education so offered. It would be worth the consideration of the noble Lord whether he could not apportion the grant to the number of persons who were to receive education.
MR. HENLEYsaid, that the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) had that night, for the first time, announced that he now hoped to establish a system of national education. That had certainly followed upon a rather extraordinary statement by the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Fox); because that hon. Gentleman had said he felt great apprehensions concerning the number of pupil-teachers who were likely to be turned out highly educated persons, and who were not likely to be absorbed in the existing means of employment. The hon. Gentleman said he looked forward with much apprehension at the prospect of such a number of highly-educated persons being without adequate employment. After hearing that, and afterwards the statement of the noble Lord, that he was about to introduce a system of national education,
614
the Committee ought to hear upon what foundation of principle those persons thus turned upon the county were to be guarded so as to be safe members of society. For his own part, he (Mr. Henley) could not regard with alarm, provided a proper religious foundation were laid, any amount of education. He had been astonished to hear the hon. Gentleman say that these persons would not be absorbed by the means of employment; for, in that case, he must have a poor opinion of the result of moral and intellectual education alone. He repeated that he, for one, looked with no alarm upon any amount of Christian education; for whatever schemes came from the hands of any persons, he they of the Government or not, he felt assured that the people of this country would not consent to have any system of national education that was not based upon religion. An hon. Gentleman had expressed the hope that so much of the grant as had hitherto been given for school houses would henceforth be restricted. He deemed such a course to be most unfair and unjust on account of that circumstance which was so strongly noticed by the noble Lord when he observed that children in this poor station of life were obliged to be taken out of school at so early an age that they could not receive education of high quality. It was known that that obligation arose from the necessities of the parents; for when men were earning only 7s. or 8s. a week, even the little their children could earn was something towards the aggregate support of the whole family. Under these circumstances, it was certainly not to be expected that a very high quality of education could be obtained by these poor children; but money was not grudged to give another portion of the community as high an education as could be afforded, and the whole of this part of the grants was given for the education of persons who would not be calculated for teachers in poor and remote rural districts, because they could not afford to pay them. From that part of the grant they would derive little benefit, and he, therefore, thought it was unfair and unjust that the other part of the grant should be curtailed, which was the only part the rural districts were able to enjoy. If the Committee wished to increase education, they must not neglect the rural districts, and in the annual accounts they ought to show how the actual sum expended during the preceding year had been disbursed, fie wished every facility to be

615
given to the education of every religious denomination.
MR. W. J. FOXsaid, the hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) had totally misunderstood his apprehension as to the number of persons trained to discharge the duties of schoolmasters. He anticipated none of the evils which the hon. Member seemed to suppose; but he did not think that to give men a very high education, and then place them in a situation in which they were paid lower than the most common menials that were employed in domestic service, was a benevolent act. It was not a benevolent thing to condemn men to a position in which their attainments and their circumstances had not a fair degree of correspondence. In fact, it inflicted an injury upon them, as it served, in the natural course of things, however religious their education might have been, to sour their tempers and disturb the balance of their minds. He did not speak hypothetically, because he had a personal knowledge of the fact, that this was the effect produced on the teachers of the national schools. He repudiated the selfish motives attributed to him by the hon. Member, as to preventing the spread of education amongst the agricultural classes, and obtaining as much money as he could on behalf of the manufacturing towns. He heard the noble Lord's (Lord John Russell's) statement with great pleasure, though he did not interpret it as a promise to adopt the secular system of education.
MR. RICEsaid, he expected great good to result from the establishment of district schools by the Poor Law Unions; and he wished the noble Lord at the head of the Government to consider whether some aid might not be given to such Unions as were disposed to build these schools.
MR. GLADSTONEconcurred in the general views expressed by the hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), and begged to congratulate the Committee, that the educational vote upon English education had always been discussed by all men of all classes in that House with a sincere intention of meeting the difficulties of the case, and extending education as much as possible. With regard to the division between the Committee of Privy Council and the National Society, it did appear to him that, as a matter of individual choice, were he engaged in founding a school, he should not choose that particular form to which the Privy Council objected; but it was more than doubtful whe-
616
ther the constitution of such a school was likely to have so fatal an operation that it ought to be visited with total exclusion from the benefits of the educational grant. Looking to this matter in a practical view, if one-sixth or one-seventh of these schools were excluded because they adhered to these conditions, then, although he regretted their exclusion, he also regretted the rigid adherence to that view of the case which so excluded them. He entertained a sanguine hope that means would be found before the House again met to discuss the subject for the removal of so serious a mischief. This was all he had to say on the general question. He wished, however, to allude to a particular rumour which was abroad, injurious to the Committee of Privy Council, because it imputed to them a course of conduct which, if true, was most unreasonable. He bogged to say, that he, for one, did not believe it; but the statement was made public on an occasion no less serious than the annual meeting of the National Society; and he thought the noble Lord at the head of the Government would be of opinion that he (Mr. Gladstone) was only doing his duty in making the rumour known to the Committee, so that if it had no foundation, a contradiction might at once be given to it by the Government, or an explanation offered that would completely alter its character. The rumour he alluded to was this:—In the case of a particular school, which he had never heard named, the founders proposed to provide by deed (the school being directly connected with the Church of England) that the schoolmaster and schoolmistress should be communicants of the Church of England; and it was said, that upon this account the founders of the school had been excluded by the Committee of Council from participation in the public grant. Now, for his own part, he could not conceive that a more reasonable provision could be inserted in the deed of a Church of England school.
MR. SLANEYsaid, that a great improvement had taken place in the schools of many rural districts by the introduction of a system of oral instruction by means of pupil-teachers, by which system twice as much real instruction was given in three years as was given in six years by the rote system which formerly prevailed. He begged also to bear testimony to the value of the industrial instruction which was given in the Watt Institution, in the county with which he was connected.
MR. CAREWsuggested, that if the inspectors of schools were to recommend a few of the hest hoys for employment in the dockyards, it would prove a great stimulus to them.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLwished to say a few words in consequence of an observation which had fallen from the hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley). The hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Fox) having expressed a hope that the Government had not abandoned all idea of a national system of education, he (Lord John Russell) said, in reply, that the Government still kept that object in view; upon which the hon. Member for Oxfordshire concluded that the scheme which he (Lord John Russell) contemplated was the scheme of the hon. Member for Oldham. Now, there was certainly nothing in what he had said that could at all justify such an inference. When the scheme of the hon. Member for Oldham was before the House, he stated his objections to it. His own opinion was, that there were two essential requisites to any plan of national education that was proposed to that House. The one was, that secular instruction should not be separated from religious instruction; and the other was, that no child educated at the public expense should he compelled to attend any religious instruction to which its parents conscientiously objected. He considered that both those conditions were essential requisites; and the difficulty would be, to reconcile them in any plan to be adopted. The hon. Member for Oxfordshire had also made some remarks with respect to the conditions which were laid down by the Committee of Privy Council; and he was followed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone). He (Lord John Russell) did not wish to enter again into that question. He would only say, that the Committee of Education had carried on all their correspondence with the National Society, with the view, if possible, to come to some agreement upon the point at issue between them. The Committee of Privy Council had always insisted that there should be lay members on the committee of management in those schools; and when the National Society said they thought that those lay members ought to be communicants in the Church of England, the Committee of Privy Council readily agreed to that proposal. There did remain one point of difficulty, and one only, and that was with respect to secular education. The Committee of
618
Privy Council were not prepared to afford aid in those cases where secular instruction should be entirely placed at the disposal or under the direction of clerical persons only. They were of opinion that where a clergyman, differing from the lay members of the committee, should appeal to the bishop, and the bishop should go with him against the lay members, that that decision should not be allowed to govern the conduct of the school. It appeared to them to be an unreasonable condition, and one that might lead to injurious consequences if much adopted. He did not deny that it was from a jealousy which the other Members of Council probably did not entertain, but which he himself entertained, of too great an increase of clerical power, whether in their Establishment or among ministers of other denominations, that he, for one, objected to the proposal. But, however, he could not say that the practical effect had been such as either to deprive the Committee of Privy Council of the confidence of the great body of the clergy, or to deprive the schools connected with the National Society of the aid of the public grants, because he found that the schools in connexion with the Church of England had received 78 per cent, almost 79 per cent, of the whole sum granted for education; while the British and Foreign Society's schools received only 9 per cent, the Wesleyan schools 1½ per cent, and the Roman Catholic school ¼ per cent of the whole sum. Now, if that was the case, it was quite evident that the schools connected with the Church of England now, had a large portion of the grant. It had besides appeared lately from some pains which had been taken to ascertain the fact, that great confidence was felt by the general body of the clergy in the Committee of Privy Council, and the application of the grants. Another symptom of the same fact was found in the recent meeting of the National Society, when the proposal to break off altogether from the Committee of Privy Council was evidently rejected by the general sense of the meeting. With respect to the question which had been asked by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford, he begged to say that he was not present at the meeting of the Committee of Privy Council when a decision was come to upon the case to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred; but it did appear that this was a school with respect to which it was proposed that the master and mistress should

619
be communicants in the Church of England. Now, in the terms of union which the National Society had issued for the purpose of being subscribed by parties desirous of uniting the schools with the National Society, it was stated, in the fourth clause, that the masters and mistresses should be members of the Church of England; and when this question came before the Committee of Privy Council, his noble Friend the President of Council said it would be better to keep to the terms which the National Society had themselves laid down, namely, that the master and mistress should be members of the Church of England. There was no other objection to the stipulation of their being communicants except that it differed from the terms which the National Society themselves had laid down.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that if the case stood as the noble Lord had stated it, he did hope that the Committee of Privy Council would reconsider their decision upon this plain ground, that they had altogether misconceived the terms of union of the National Society. What the National Society said by the fourth clause, to which the noble Lord had referred, was, that they would have nothing to do with a master or mistress unless they were members of the Church of England; but they nowhere said they would have nothing to do with them provided they were communicants. The clause contained merely the minimum of their demand, not the maximum.
Vote agreed to; as were also the following Votes:—
(5.) 134,560 l., Public Education, Ireland.
(6.) 15,055 l., Schools of Design.
(7.) 2,006 l., Professors, Oxford and Cambridge.
(8.) 3,920 l., University of London.
(9.) 7,610 l., Universities, &c. in Scotland.
(10.) 300 l., Royal Irish Academy.
(11.) 300 l., Royal Hibernian Academy.
(12.) 6,260 l., Royal Dublin Society.
(13.) 3,000 l., Theological Professors at Belfast, &c.
(14.) 1,620 l., Queen's University in Ireland.
(15.) 1,700 l., National Gallery.
(16.) 15,623 l., Museum of Practical Geology, and Geological Survey.
(17.) 2,421 l., Scientific Works and Experiments.
(18.) 10,000 l., Galleries of Art, Edinburgh.
House resumed; Resolutions to be reported on Monday next.
The House adjourned at One o'clock.